Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Provisional Order Bills (No Standing Orders applicable),

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, namely:—

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Guisborough Joint Small-pox Hospital District) Bill.

Bill to be read a Second time Tomorrow.

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Leicester and Warwick) Bill,

Read the Third time, and passed.

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Cumberland and Lancaster) Bill,

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Gloucester and Warwick) Bill,

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Holland and Kesteven) Bill,

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Holland and Lindsey) Bill,

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time To-morrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

JUVENILE INSTRUCTION CENTRES.

Mr. PALING: 1.
asked the Minister of Labour whether it is now the intention to provide meals to young persons in attendance at the juvenile instructional centres established under the Unemployment Act, 1934?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. R. S. Hudson): I am advised that local education authorities have no power to provide meals for unemployed boys and girls attending junior instruction centres
established under the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1934. Arrangements have, however, been made under which milk may be supplied at a low price as in elementary schools and in England and Wales milk may be supplied free in certain circumstances which are detailed in a circular of which I am sending the hon. Member a copy.

Mr. PALING: Is it not a fact that the commissioners' reports on the depressed areas did make suggestions that meals should be provided at some of these centres, and in one case did they not make a definite recommendation to that effect? Is the Minister going to do anything?

Mr. HUDSON: My recollection is that those reports were written before the new scheme for providing cheap milk in schools had been announced. We are extending to adolescents attending these junior centres the same privileges as are given to children attending elementary schools. That, we think, will go a long way to meet the needs.

JUVENILE EMPLOYMENT BUREAUX.

Mr. SIMMONDS: 3.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that there are serious shortages of juvenile labour in various industrial districts; and what steps he is taking to provide for the migration of such labour and for safeguarding the interests of these juveniles living away from home?

Mr. HUDSON: I have had a detailed reply to this question prepared which, with my hon. Friend's permission, I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. SIMMONDS: Has not the Ministry of Labour some routine machinery for providing for juvenile migration?

Mr. HUDSON: If the hon. Member means juvenile migration from depressed areas to more prosperous areas the answer is in the affirmative, and I have given him, as he will see, very detailed information about the steps we are taking to make that scheme even more efficient.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Are we to take it that the Government have machinery in operation for taking the children of the poor from their mothers and bringing them into more prosperous areas?

Mr. HUDSON: It is not a question of taking the children from their mothers, but of finding jobs for school-leavers and others.

Following is the reply:

The Department are fully aware that there is a shortage of juvenile labour in some districts and a surplus in others. The machinery already in operation designed to remedy this position has achieved a considerable degree of success during the past few years, and my right hon. Friend is taking steps to increase its effectiveness in every practicable way. He has in particular caused a letter to be addressed to Education Authorities administering Juvenile Employment Bureaux in areas in which there is likely to be a shortage of juvenile labour, and has urged them in the national interest to give their full and sympathetic co-operation in dealing with this problem. It will be appreciated that arrangements for watching over the welfare of juveniles transferred away from home are specially important; such arrangements already exist and are being strengthened. In certain cases the initial wage paid to juvenile employees is not enough to enable them to live away from home, and this is particularly true of certain vacancies which offer good prospects; in such cases a small grant may be made by the Department to the juvenile to cover the difference. Still further to assist in a rapid and continuous transfer consideration is now being given to the setting up of three experimental juvenile transfer centres in South Wales, Durham and Lanarkshire respectively, where it is hoped that the physique of boys may be improved who are willing and whose parents are willing that they should transfer to other areas. My right hon. Friend is profoundly interested in this problem and he believes that with the increased co-operation of the local education authorities upon which he relies, and with the application of the other additional measures to which reference has been made, a substantial contribution to the reduction of unemployment in the depressed areas, where the juvenile problem is most serious, may foe effected.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOURS OF WORK (BRIGGS BODIES, LIMITED).

Mr. BUCHANAN: 4.
asked the Minister of Labour whether, in the discussions
which he proposes to have with employers on the subject of hours of work, he will take into special consideration the position at Briggs Bodies, Limited, in view of the excessive hours which are being worked there?

Mr. HUDSON: As the hon. Member is aware, the Department has already been in communication with the company to which he refers, and they have indicated a readiness to discuss the position further. My right hon. Friend proposes to pursue the matter in conjunction with the discussions with the organisations in the industries concerned.

Mr. BUCHANAN: In view of the fact that this firm works 55 hours, and in view of the normal rates paid, at least will the right hon. Gentleman call the attention of the Government Departments to the desirability of the firm not securing Government contracts until they conform to the ordinary standard?

Mr. HUDSON: I have already said that the company have indicated their readiness to consider the position further with my Department.

Oral Answers to Questions — DIRECTOR OF PRISON INDUSTRIES.

Mr. POTTER: 5.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department the minimum and maximum rates of pay and increments of the new prison commissioner or controller of industries in the prisons and institutions; whether candidates for the post were advertised for in the public Press or otherwise; and if any members of the existing superior or subordinate staffs were given opportunities of applying to be considered for the position?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Gilmour): The scale of pay of the Director of Prison Industries is approximately £1,150, rising by annual increments of £50 to £1,350. The answers to the second and third parts of the question are in the affirmative.

Oral Answers to Questions — BETTING AND LOTTERIES ACT, 1934.

Mr. PIKE: 6.
asked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the fact that the organisation, sale, and distribution of tickets in the Irish Free State hospitals
sweepstake to be drawn in connection with the Grand National Steeplechase run in March, 1935, had been in progress prior to the passing into law of the Betting and Lotteries Act, and that thousands of tickets have been purchased by persons resident in this country, he will alter the date upon which the Act is enforceable from 1st January, 1935, to 30th April, 1935?

Sir J. GILMOUR: No, Sir; legislation would be required for this purpose.

Mr. PIKE: If I put down a question to the right hon. Gentleman asking him whether he would delay the operation of the Act to 1st April, does he not think that that would be a more appropriate date?

Sir J. GILMOUR: That does not arise from the original question.

Oral Answers to Questions — TAXIMETER CABS, LONDON.

Mr. WEST: 7.
asked the Home Secretary how many taximeter-cabs were licensed in 1930 and 1933, respectively?

Sir J. GILMOUR: The number of taximeter cabs licensed by the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis in 1930 and 1933 were 8,167 and 8,025 respectively.

Mr. WEST: 8.
asked the Home Secretary how many licences were issued to taximeter-cab drivers in 1930 and 1933?

Sir J. GILMOUR: The numbers of licences issued by the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis to taximeter-cab drivers in 1930 and 1933 were 10,927 and 11,461 respectively.

Mr. WEST: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the increasing hardship to hundreds of men owing to the increasing proportion of drivers to cabs; and is he also aware that hundreds, if not thousands, of these men are now having to work 12 hours a day and more for less than £3 a week?

Sir J. GILMOUR: That is not a question which can be answered at this time. I am prepared to look into any question of hardship, but I am not aware of any under the present conditions.

Oral Answers to Questions — ILLICIT SPIRITS (MANUFACTURE).

Mr. STOURTON: 9.
asked the Home Secretary whether Benjamin Berger, who
was convicted of large scale illicit manufacture of spirits, is to be deported; and what steps are to be taken against his associate Markovitch who was deported in 1931 and is reported to have returned to this country and to be still at large carrying on the same illicit trade?

Sir J. GILMOUR: It has been ascertained that Berger is a British-born subject. No question of deportation therefore arises. As regards Markovitch, no information has yet been obtained as to his present whereabouts.

Oral Answers to Questions — CRANE ACCIDENT, ERITH.

Mr. THORNE: 11.
asked the Home Secretary whether he has received a report from his inspector in connection with a crane accident at Erith, when a crane driver was seriously injured; and if he can state whether the crane was carrying more than its registered load?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I understand that a crane accident which occurred last Sunday is being investigated by the Factory Department. No further statement is possible at present.

Oral Answers to Questions — IVORY CROSS NATIONAL DENTAL AID FUND.

Mr. HOLFORD KNIGHT: 12.
asked the Home Secretary whether the police have made further inquiries as to the alleged gambling party at Sunderland House on 5th December; and whether action thereon is intended?

Sir J. GILMOUR: The whole matter is under consideration by the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, and I regret that I am not in a position to make any statement at present as to possible further action.

Mr. KNIGHT: In view of the prolongation of the time since this incident occurred, will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that these proceedings will be instituted as soon as possible in order to avoid the appearance of any discrimination?

Sir J. GILMOUR: Yes, Sir. The matter has been considered by the appropriate authorities.

Mr. BUCHANAN: But should the right hon. Gentleman interfere with the rich in their joys? Are they not a different people, and should they not be allowed to do what they like?

Oral Answers to Questions — FIXED EASTER.

Mr. MABANE: 14.
asked the Home Secretary whether he is in a position to say that any answer has been received by the League of Nations to the communication addressed by them to religious bodies with the object of securing general agreement on the subject of a fixed date for Easter; and whether, in default of such general agreement being reached, he is prepared to appoint a day for bringing into operation the Fixed Easter Act?

Sir J. GILMOUR: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, His Majesty's Government, after careful and sympathetic consideration of the matter in all its aspects, have decided, in view of the difficulty of securing international agreement, to take no further action at the present time to bring into operation the Easter Act, 1928.

Mr. MABANE: If the answer to the first part of the question is "Yes," will my right hon. Friend say what was the nature of the answer received by the League of Nations?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I understand that the result of the inquiry made under the auspices of the League of Nations can be purchased, if the hon. Member cares to do so.

Mr. BUCHANAN: That is a proper Scotsman's answer.

Oral Answers to Questions — HIS MAJESTY'S SILVER JUBILEE.

Mr. POTTER: 19.
asked the Minister of Health whether having regard to the Silver Jubilee celebrations of His Majesty in May next and to the special circumstances thereof, he will be prepared to allow reasonable expenditure to those towns and cities coming within his jurisdiction desirous of holding their own local celebrations?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir Hilton Young): Yes, Sir, and I hope early in the New Year to issue a general sanction for this purpose.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

COMPENSATION.

Mr. CHORLTON: 20.
asked the Minister of Health whether in the Bill in connection with housing shortly to be introduced he has taken steps to deal with compensation wherever it may be legitimately established retrospectively?

Sir H. YOUNG: I must ask my hon. Friend to await the publication of the Bill.

TIMBER-FRAMED HOUSES.

Mr. McENTEE: 21.
asked the Minister of Health whether during the past two years any local authorities have applied for sanction to erect, under the 1925, 1930 or 1933 Housing Acts, timber-framed houses and, if so, whether sanction has been granted; and whether his Department has any objection to the erection of such houses providing they comply with the local by-laws?

Sir H. YOUNG: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative; the second part does not therefore arise. As regards the last part, I would draw the hon. Member's attention to the answer given to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and Cockermouth (Mr. Dixey) on 7th November last.

Mr. McENTEE: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered the last part of the question. I want to know the policy of the Ministry, whether they would be prepared to sanction any such erection if it is in accordance with the local by-laws?

Sir H. YOUNG: That is precisely the point that is answered in the previous question.

FLATS (MODERN DESIGNS).

Major Sir ALAN McLEAN: 24.
asked the Minister of Health whether he can arrange, in connection with the introduction of the Housing Bill, to exhibit for Members' inspection plans showing modern developments in the construction of flats?

Sir H. YOUNG: Yes, Sir. I think an exhibition showing modern improvements in design will be of interest to Members, and arrangements are being made for it after the Recess.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC ASSISTANCE COMMITTEES.

Miss WARD: 23.
asked the Minister of Health in how many of the 46 counties and 52 county boroughs where the administrative scheme provides for the inclusion on the public assistance committees of members other than members of the council, such members have in fact been appointed?

Sir H. YOUNG: I regret that I cannot provide this information, because appointments of co-opted members do not have to be reported to me.

Oral Answers to Questions — OLD AGE PENSION ACTS (APPEAL, LEEDS).

Mr. WHITESIDE: 25.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that in March, 1933, Mr. Thomas Burns, of 12, Mackenzie Street, Towngate, Leeds, applied for a pension under the Old Age Pension Acts, 1908–24; that at that time he was granted a pension by the local pensions committee, against which grant the local pensions officer successfully appealed and that subsequent applications by Mr. Burns have met with similar results; that an appeal is at present sub judice; and what is delaying the decision in this matter?

Sir H. YOUNG: The answer to the first part of my hon. Friend's question is in, the affirmative, except that the committee rejected a second claim and, on appeal, I upheld their decision. As regards the last part of the question, the present claim requires the investigation of means over a fresh period, and the collection of the necessary evidence by the local pension officer is being expedited.

Mr. WHITESIDE: In view of the fact that this matter has, in fact, if not technically, been outstanding for nearly two years, I hereby give notice that, unless a satisfactory conclusion is reached between now and the reassembly of the House after the Christmas Recess, I shall raise the question on the Adjournment.

Sir H. YOUNG: My hon. Friend's statement is not strictly accurate. We are dealing here, not with a single appeal but with a series of appeals, which have been repeated.

Mr. WHITESIDE: What right has a local pensions officer to appeal against a decision of the local pensions committee unless he has the material knowledge at his disposal?

Oral Answers to Questions — INDUSTRIAL PENSIONS (COST).

Mr. DENVILLE: 27.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can give an estimate of the approximate cost to the State if legislation were introduced to remove all workers from industry at the age of 60?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): I presume my hon. Friend has in mind the grant of pensions to those who are removed from industry at the age of 60. If this is so, I would refer him to the answer I gave on 11th December to a question by the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. West) explaining the labour required to make these calculations, but showing that a scheme based on certain assumptions would involve a net cost of £279,000,000 per annum.

Mr. WEST: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, whereas his answer gave a figure of £279,000,000, in the Debate which has been referred to, the Prime Minister at that time gave a figure of £140,000,000: and is not £140,000,000 a much more probable figure?

Mr. DENVILLE: If the right hon. Gentleman is in a position to give the figure with such accuracy, would it be possible also to give the number of persons involved, that is to say the number of persons who would be absorbed into industry and the number taken out of industry?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: In answer to the first supplementary question, it is obvious that these calculations all depend upon the assumptions which are made, and the assumptions are different in the two eases to which the hon. Member refers. With regard to the second supplementary question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer, because there again it is a question of what assumptions are made and the assumptions in the calculation, of which I have given the result, were not the same as
those which my hon. Friend has in mind. To make fresh calculations would involve a very considerable amount of labour.

Mr. WEST: Is it not the case that the first assumption included pensions of millionaires and Members of the House of Lords, which was not sensible?

Mr. LAMBERT: Is that extra to the present cost of pensions?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes.

Captain PETER MACDONALD: Is it not a fact that if men, even at 65, were withdrawn from industry at the present time, it would cost a great deal and would cause much hardship?

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

SHIPPING INDUSTRY.

Miss WARD: 28.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any decision has yet been taken by the Cunard-White Star Company to build a sister ship to the "Queen Mary"?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No such decision has yet been taken.

Lieut.-Colonel SANDEMAN ALLEN: 29.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the revised proposals submitted by Major Bustard with regard to the operation of the Red Star vessels still available for purchase and the value of this service, as revised, to Merseyside, he will reconsider lifting the ban placed on financial houses in respect of this venture?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The revised scheme does not differ in principle from the earlier proposals. In the opinion of the Government they would have the effect of reviving uneconomic competition to the prejudice of the interests of the British North Atlantic trade as a whole. Accordingly I do not feel able to modify the view which I have previously expressed.

FLANNEL GARMENTS (GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS).

Mr. R. T. EVANS: 31.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware of the depressed state of the weaving industry in South and West Wales, and that contracts for flannel garments to be used by men in the services are lost by small margins
because of extra freight and packing charges; and whether, in view of the cost of maintaining the workers in this industry who have been unemployed for long periods, he will take up the matter with the contracts departments with a view to giving special consideration to tenders from firms operating in these depressed areas?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Duff Cooper): The general question raised by the hon. Member has been under consideration, and I understand that, other things being equal, the contracting departments are prepared to give special consideration to tenders submitted by firms working in areas suffering from prolonged and severe unemployment.

COASTAL SHIPPING (FOREIGN COMPETITION).

Captain SOTHERON-ESTCOURT: 64.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the increasing competition of foreign motor ships, principally Dutch, in the British coastal trade along the East Coast; whether he can give any statistics as to the extent of such trade; and whether, in these circumstances, he will consider extending the subsidy to British coastal shipping?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Runciman): My attention has been called to the competition of foreign motor vessels in the coasting trade of the United Kingdom, but I am not aware that such competition is increasing. Statistics as to the extent of the coasting trade along the East Coast are not readily available. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative, for the reasons which I gave in this House during the Debate on the British Shipping (Assistance) Money Resolution on 4th December.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: In view of the controversy which exists as to the competition in the coasting trade, will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for a special record to be kept of coasting vessels clearing at East Coast ports for a period of some months?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: Yes, that will certainly be done, but it will not give, the information which I feel sure my hon. Friend desires, that is, the actual traffic.

SHIPS' CARGOES (UNLOADING).

Captain SOTHERON-ESTCOURT: 65.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether foreign ships bringing cargo to British waters are allowed on disembarking such cargo to employ their own crew, or whether they must employ British labour; and whether the rule abroad is that cargoes on British vessels must be unloaded by employés of the port where they are discharged?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am advised that it is not the practice of foreign ships to employ their crews to unload cargoes in British ports, and that if in any particular instance it were desired to employ the crew of a foreign vessel for this purpose the employer would have to apply to the Ministry of Labour for a permit under the provisions of the Aliens Order, 1920. I understand that in foreign countries it is the general rule for local labour to be employed.

IMPERIAL PREFERENCE (MOTOR CARS).

Major MILLS: 66.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether His Majesty's Government will enter into negotiations with the Governments of the Dominions to ensure that manufactured goods sent to Great Britain from each such Dominion in order to qualify for Empire preference shall have the maximum of work done on them within the Empire, bearing in mind particularly the Canadian corridor and goods manufactured in Canada in connection with the motor industry?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: A resolution adopted at the Imperial Economic Conference at Ottawa recommended each Government of the Empire, when deciding what standard of Empire content it should require, to bear in mind that a greater degree of uniformity is desirable, and that the standard adopted should not be such as to defeat or frustrate the intention of the preferential rate of duty conceded to any class of goods. With these considerations in mind, the Board of Trade made regulations in January, 1933, increasing the standard of Empire content for various classes of goods, including motor cars, to 50 per cent. The same standard is applicable to motor cars in Canada. In those circumstances, I see no reason for re-opening the question in the manner proposed.

Major MILLS: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that, in practice, the cars which come here from Canada have the requisite amount of Empire material and workmanship in them, and that we do not get American cars in the guise of Canadian cars?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The intention of the law is that the origin of motor cars as well as other goods should be specified in the declaration, and if there is a false declaration it would render the importer liable.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: Has the right hon. Gentleman been good enough to look at the information sent to him as to motor cars coming from the United States through Canada to this country?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: My hon. Friend asked a question on this subject on 12th July, and with that information before us he was given what I thought was a sufficient reply.

Mr. DAVIES: It was not very satisfactory.

NEW INDUSTRIES (LANCASHIRE).

Mr. GORDON MACDONALD: 67.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the number of new industries settled in Lancashire during the last three years and the number of persons employed therein?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 27th November to the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Parkinson).

TEXTILE DYERS (FEDERATION).

Mr. CROSSLEY: 68.
asked the President of the Board of Trade, whether the proposals he has received for the formation of a textile dyers' federation have been submitted to and replies received from the spinners, manufacturers, calico printers, and bleachers; and whether, in the event of the support of a substantial majority of the dyers for these proposals, he will consider introducing legislation to enable them to institute a redundancy and quota scheme?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The proposals which I have received for the formation of a textile dyers' federation have been submitted to the various sections of the
textile trades which are likely to be affected by them and replies have been received from some but not all of the interests consulted. I am not at present in a position to make any statement as to the possibility of legislation in connection with these proposals.

BRAZIL (EXCHANGE CONTROL).

Mr. HANNON: 69.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, adverting to the circular issued by the Overseas Trade Department on 5th December relating to the recent decree of the Government of Brazil on exchange control, he will take into consideration the financial and trade disabilities which this decree will impose upon British manufacturers; and if he will make appropriate representations to the Government of Brazil for such modifications as may be essential to safeguard the interests of British trade in that country?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: His Majesty's Ambassador in Rio de Janeiro has already made representations to the Brazilian Government in the desired sense.

Mr. HANNON: Can my right hon. Friend say when he expects to have any definite reply?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: No, Sir. I am afraid I cannot say that.

Sir ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that unless he can succeed in obtaining a relaxation of these exchange controls no British manufacturer will dare to accept an order to send goods to Brazil, because he will not get paid?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am well aware of the fact that unless the exchange is on a stabilised footing, so that he knows where he stands, no wise exporter will take the risk.

MILK (DISTRIBUTORS' PROFITS).

Mr. DENVILLE: 71.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will take steps to reduce the profits made by the distributors of milk and by-products, with a view to relieving distress and the national Exchequer?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am not aware of any power to take the action suggested
by my hon. Friend. The Food Council propose to investigate the question of distributors' margins in the milk trade, and they will no doubt be glad to consider any information with which my hon. Friend may be in a position to furnish them.

GRIST MILLS.

Mr. LAMBERT: 72.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the number of country grist mills that have been closed in England and Wales since 1918; and what has been the total number of workers displaced?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I regret that the desired information is not available.

Mr. LAMBERT: Having regard to the extreme importance of this matter to the agricultural industry, will my right hon. Friend take steps to get this information; and is he aware that the concentration of grinding wheat at the ports is having a very deleterious effect in agricultural districts?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I will see whether the information can be obtained by some means, perhaps not purely official, and I will communicate with my hon. Friend.

GERMAN TRADE (EXPORT CREDITS).

Major MacANDREW: 76.
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether the Export Credits Guarantee Department will insure traders against the risk of delay in payments due to them in respect of exports to Germany?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): Yes, Sir. In deference to representations made to them and in order to facilitate trade the Department's Advisory Committee have agreed to consider applications for guarantees of payment in sterling upon fixed dates in respect of current exports of United Kingdom origin to Germany. Such guarantees which will be available up to a limited amount will be in the form of an addition to the normal insurance offered against losses due to the insolvency of foreign customers.

Major MacANDREW: Is not this a new departure for the Department of Overseas Trade; and may I ask also whether it was made in response to representations from interested parties?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: There has been a strong demand from exporters that the Export Credits Guarantee Department should insure against the risk of exchange restrictions abroad, and the Anglo-German Payments Agreement has made it possible, in this ease, to undertake that kind of business. I believe it will be of help to exporters.

Oral Answers to Questions — PORT OF ROCHESTER (PRIVILEGES).

Sir PARK GOFF: 30.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether the same privileges are granted to approved wharves in the port of Rochester for the class of goods upon which duty has now to be paid as has always been enjoyed for the same class of goods which were previously free of duty?

Mr. COOPER: In the case of goods previously free and now dutiable which have been regularly handled at approved wharves in the port of Rochester in the past, the Customs privileges have been extended so as to cover the continued handling of these goods.

Oral Answers to Questions — LONDON CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY, LIMITED.

Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: 32.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that the London Co-operative Society, Limited, has opened a legal department for the purpose of undertaking legal work for profit; and what action he proposes to take in view of this apparent breach of its rules as filed with the Registrar of Friendly Societies?

Mr. COOPER: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative, and in these circumstances it is not possible to say whether any matter has arisen in which the chief registrar could take any action.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Do I understand "in the negative" to mean that my hon. Friend is not aware of the facts or to mean that the facts are not as suggested in the question?

Mr. COOPER: I mean what I say. I am not aware. That is what I was asked.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Would my hon. Friend be good enough to make inquiries as to the possibility of some breach of the rules?

Mr. GURNEY BRAITHWAITE: Is it a fact that the society's own solicitor resigned rather than undertake the work?

Mr. COOPER: If there has been any breach of the rules, it is not for me to intervene. It is a matter for the chief registrar. It is for the hon. Members and others interested in the society to bring these facts to the notice of the registrar.

Mr. LEONARD: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this department has functioned for four years; that there is no rule contravened by this action and that the Law Society is fully aware of the arrangement?

Mr. PIKE: If that be so, under what enactment has the co-operative society power to set up a legal department?

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

CATTLE SUBSIDY.

Mr. ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: 33.
asked the Minister of Agriculture when he will be in a position to state whether the cattle subsidy is to be continued after 31st March, 1935?

Mr. HASLAM: 37.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is in a position to make any statement as to the policy of the Government in regard to beef imports?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Elliot): I regret I cannot add to the replies given to questions by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert) on 30th October, and by my hon. Friend the Member for North Lanark (Mr. Anstruther-Gray) on 5th December, on the subject of the Government's livestock policy.

Mr. ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the importance of making a statement soon; and can he promise us such a statement before the House reassembles?

Mr. ELLIOT: I am afraid I could not give any promise.

Mr. PALING: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the proposals submitted to the Dominion Government in lieu of subsidy have been received with great satisfaction?

Mr. ELLIOT: I cannot go beyond the answer I have given.

Mr. BUCHANAN: When the right hon. Gentleman is giving away Government money to farmers, will he remember that there are some of his own constituents who need it much more?

BEEF IMPORTS.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: 34.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the imports of beef in November, 1934, were 1,096,479 cwts., an increase of 157,750 cwts. or nearly 17 per cent. as compared with November, 1933; and can he now announce what steps he proposes to take to deal with the steadily-growing competition with the British livestock industry?

Mr. ELLIOT: The figures for imports of beef in November are as stated. With regard to the second part of the question, I have nothing to add to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend on 5th November.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Will the right hon. Gentleman indicate when he expects to be able to give a definite answer?

Mr. ELLIOT: No, I am afraid I could not.

LIVESTOCK (SLAUGHTER).

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: 35.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, before coming to any decision as to the establishment of any scheme for the centralised slaughtering of livestock, he is prepared to receive a deputation from the numerous trade associations concerned, both in slaughtering and in the utilisation of animal by-products?

Mr. ELLIOT: My hon. Friend will be aware that in the White Paper on the Livestock Situation (Cmd. 4651) presented to Parliament last July, it was announced that it would be an essential function of the permanent Commission contemplated in the Government's long-term policy to co-operate with all interests concerned in a reform of marketing and slaughtering systems, with a view to greater economy and efficiency,
which the Government regard as indispensable to the permanent prosperity of the livestock industry. The problem of centralised slaughtering of livestock is being carefully examined and I shall be happy to hear the views of the interests concerned in due course. A deputation such as my hon. Friend suggests would, however, be premature at the present time.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: When the right hon. Gentleman is considering the effect upon trade associations, will he bear in mind the associations of the slaughter-men who are engaged in these slaughter-houses?

Mr. ELLIOT: I have said that I shall be happy to hear the views of the interests concerned.

OATS (TRADE DESCRIPTION).

Colonel GOODMAN: 36.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether his attention has been called to the sale in the Harrow Road district of London of packages purporting to contain, according to a label gummed thereon, Scotland's best quick-cooking oats, whereas on removing the gummed label the inscription covered by it reads "Foreign produce"; and whether, in the interests of Scottish oats producers, he proposes to take action to prevent the deception being further practised on consumers?

Mr. ELLIOT: I was not aware of the facts mentioned in the first part of my hon. and gallant Friend's question, but if he will communicate to me the name and address of the firm or firms concerned, I will gladly look into the matter.

Colonel GOODMAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to take action immediately if I produce this afternoon the carton and the names of the people who sell these alleged Scottish oats?

Mr. ELLIOT: I will undertake to look into the matter. I cannot undertake to take action until I have had an opportunity of considering the facts.

POULTRY AND EGG COMMISSION (REPORT).

Major MILLS: 38.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is in a position to make any statement as to the report of the Poultry and Egg Commission?

Mr. ELLIOT: I have had an opportunity of discussing the matter with the
Chairman of the commission, and he hopes to complete the report at an early date in January. I will publish it as soon as possible thereafter.

TURKEYS.

Mr. LYONS: 39.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether his attention has been called to the recent importations of Hungarian turkeys; whether he can give the approximate figures of the imports of foreign turkeys for the period from 1st November, 1934, up to the most recent convenient date; and whether, in view of the season of the year, he proposes to take any steps to safeguard further the interests of the home-producer?

Mr. ELLIOT: I am aware that, as is usual at this season, considerable quantities of Hungarian turkeys are being imported. During the five weeks ended 5th December, imports of foreign turkeys have amounted to approximately 34,000 cwts. With regard to the last part of the question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Louth (Lieut.-Colonel Heneage) on 29th November last.

Mr. LYONS: May I inquire whether the home market is not sufficient to supply the home demand?

Mr. ELLIOT: That matter came before the Imports Duty Advisory Committee, and it is in consequence of their decision that the imports are now taking place.

Mr. LYONS: Did the Imports Duty Advisory Committee give to my right hon. Friend the reasons for their decision?

Mr. ELLIOT: No. It was specially arranged in the legislation that they should not be brought into close contact with their political chiefs in the Department.

Mr. CROSSLEY: What markings are supposed to be put on foreign turkeys?

Mr. ELLIOT: I could not say without notice.

Mr. THORNE: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any idea, if there were no imported turkeys in this country, what would be the price of English turkeys?

Mr. ELLIOT: That is a hypothetical question.

Mr. LYONS: Is not the price of the home turkeys less than that of the foreign turkeys?

MILLING OFFALS.

Mr. R. T. EVANS: 40.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he has considered the resolution from the Carmarthen Farmers' Co-operative Society complaining of the high prices of milling offals as compared with wheat; and whether he is in a position to make a statement as to what action he proposes to take to deal with the situation?

Mr. ELLIOT: I am aware of the resolution in regard to the prices of wheat and milling offals referred to by the hon. Member. The issues raised by it cannot, I fear, be dealt with satisfactorily by question and answer. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative.

Oral Answers to Questions — CORACLE FISHING, RIVER TOWY.

Mr. R. T. EVANS: 41.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will investigate the circumstances of the revocation of the coracle fishing licence of Mr. William Owens, who secured his livelihood by this means on the River Towy; and whether he is aware that licences have been reissued to some who have other forms of employment and that this is in contravention of the terms of the Order defining the powers of the fishery board concerned?

Mr. ELLIOT: I have already made inquiries into the circumstances of the case referred to in the first part of the question, and upon the information which I have received Mr. Owens does not appear to have been a regular holder of a coracle fishing licence or to have satisfied the qualifying conditions that would entitle him to preference in the granting of licences under the terms of the relative Order. I understand, however, that the licensing committee of the fishery board have made arrangements whereby Mr. Owens will be enabled to fish. I am not aware of the circumstances of the other persons referred to in the last part of the question, but the responsibility for the issue of licences rests with the licensing committee, and I have no authority to intervene.

Mr. EVANS: Is it not a fact that the rights of the fishery board are governed
by the Order, and is it not also a fact that the Order insists that preference should be given to those whose livelihood is earned entirely out of coracle fishing?

Mr. ELLIOT: I am afraid I could not go into the merits of any particular case at Question Time.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: Is it not the case that most explicit assurances were given to this House, when the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act was passing through, that the rights of these fishermen would be amply safeguarded?

Mr. ELLIOT: They are amply safeguarded, and they have in fact a majority on the licensing committee.

Mr. EVANS: If I provide my right hon. Friend with information which, to the best of my knowledge, is contrary to that which has been provided to him, will he reopen this matter?

Mr. ELLIOT: I shall be glad to examine any information which is laid before me by my hon. Friend.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE (LAW CASE, BIRMINGHAM).

Mr. THORNE: 43.
asked the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been drawn to the observations of the county court judge at Birmingham regarding the claim for compensation brought against his Department by Mrs. Pizany, of Aston, Birmingham; and whether it is proposed to consider the matter further?

The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir Ernest Bennett): I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which my right hon. Friend gave to a similar question by the hon. Member for Hitchin (Sir A. Wilson) yesterday.

Mr. THORNE: Will the hon. Gentleman have a conversation with the Postmaster-General to see whether this case could not be settled out of court?

Sir E. BENNETT: The case is under appeal at the moment, and therefore the matter is sub judice.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

RE-HOUSING, LONGRIGGEND.

Mr. ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: 44.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland
whether he is yet in a position to state what is being done to re-house the families rendered homeless by the lire at Longriggend at the beginning of November?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Skelton): I understand that the local authority is continuing its investigations as to the best means of dealing with the question, that a subcommittee of the housing committee of the county council visited the area on Monday last, and that their recommendation in the matter is being submitted to the housing committee to-day.

Mr. ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Is my hon. Friend aware that 17 of these unfortunate people are living in one hut, and that five people are living in an old cow barn; and will he not use his influence to urge the local authority to do something in this matter without delay?

Mr. SKELTON: I am aware of the facts, and my hon. Friend, I think, is aware that in this matter I have no power of intervention, but we are keeping in close touch with the local authority. I think my hon. Friend and I are both aware of the difficulties.

Mr. ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: But is my hon. Friend aware that this state of affairs has gone on for seven weeks, and that nothing at all has been done yet?

Mr. SKELTON: Yes, I am aware of that, and I can only repeat what I have already told my hon. Friend, that this is a matter in which I have no power of intervention.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that this matter has ceased to be a matter affecting individual families and has become of great concern to the area, and in view of the fact that the implications are more widespread, will he not use the powers that he has got now in this matter?

TOTALISATORS.

Captain A. RAMSAY: 45.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he proposes to issue at an early date regulations under the First Schedule to the Betting Lotteries Act, 1934, prescribing the conditions with which a totalisator in Scotland will be required to comply?

Mr. SKELTON: Yes, Sir. Copies of draft regulations will very shortly be available to interested parties who apply for them to the Scottish Office, and any representations received will be considered before the regulations are finally made.

Mr. PIKE: Is there any truth in the rumour that because of the conditions prevailing in Scotland only a 2 per cent. rake-off is to be allowed?

UNEMPLOYMENT PAYMENTS, GREENOCK.

Mr. LEONARD: 46.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the report of Sheriff Dickson, K.C., concerning the alleged over-payments to unemployed persons in Greenock will soon be issued; and what decision he has come to in the matter?

Mr. SKELTON: My right hon. Friend hopes within the next few days to issue a determination on the question of the legality of the payments dealt with in the report to which the hon. Member refers. It is not the practice to publish such reports.

Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: Will the hon. Gentleman withhold his decision until Parliament reassembles, so that it will be possible to have the matter raised on the Floor of the House?

Mr. SKELTON: I will put my hon. Friend's point before my right hon. Friend.

FISHERY CRUISERS.

Mr. N. MACLEAN: 47.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of crew carried by the fishery cruiser "Freya"; and what are the sanitary and bathing facilities provided for the crew?

Mr. SKELTON: The complement of the fishery cruiser "Freya" consists of five officers and 15 men. There are three water closets and two baths. There is no fixed bath in the forecastle accommodation but buckets, together with fresh water (hot and cold), are available for all hands.

Mr. MACLEAN: 48.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland where the "Brenda," the "Norna," and the "Explorer" were on 6th October; where they sailed from; and the destination they sailed to?

Mr. SKELTON: These vessels were all at Leith on the morning of 6th October. The "Brenda" sailed at 1 p.m. on that day for patrol duty on the East Coast station. The "Norna" sailed on 13th October for patrol duty on the North Coast station, having been engaged in boiler cleaning in the interval. The "Explorer," which is not a patrol but a scientific research vessel sailed on 10th October for Aberdeen to resume scientific research work in the North Sea.

Mr. MACLEAN: Is it not time the Scottish Fishery Board reconsidered the matter of the coaling of these fishery cruisers, and instead of bringing them down from the Shetlands, the Moray coast, and the West coast of Scotland to Leith and Greenock, could they not be coaled near where they are operating so that they may keep a closer watch?

Mr. SKELTON: My hon. Friend must recollect that in passage to the coaling ports they are still available for patrol work and, secondly, there is the question of the relative expense of coal at such outlying places as the Shetlands or the Orkneys as compared with the more central ports.

Mr. MACLEAN: Is it not the case that the fleet has to coal, or does coal, at Invergordon, and could not the fishery cruiser which cruises about that area coal there also, instead of having to come down to Leith?

Mr. SKELTON: The problem of coaling large warships is different from that of coaling small patrol vessels.

Mr. MACLEAN: The coal is the same.

Mr. SKELTON: In the one case you can easily employ a collier and many colliers are needed; in the other case, only a small amount of coal is put into the bunkers.

Mr. MACLEAN: Could not arrangements be made with the Admiralty in order to get the coaling done on the spot and so keep the vessels at the place where they are cruising, instead of having them taken away for a week at a time?

Mr. SKELTON: I will consider that point.

Mr. MACLEAN: 49.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number
of days spent by the "Norna," the "Freya," and the "Minna" coaling at Leith or Greenock during the past year?

Mr. SKELTON: During the past year the "Freya" and the "Noma" spent 17 days and 11 days respectively coaling at Leith, and the "Minna" spent 14 days coaling at Greenock.

Mr. MACLEAN: Does not the number of days that these vessels have to be away from their cruising points, with no other cruiser taking their place in their absence, show that there is a possibility for illegal trawling to be done?

Mr. SKELTON: Yes, but, of course, my hon. Friend will realise that wherever the coaling takes place, the actual time spent in coaling would put the ship out of action from the patrol point of view.

MOTOR DRIVER'S LICENCE, GLASGOW.

Mr. BUCHANAN: 50.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that Mr. L. Kenney, 84, Polmadie Road, Glasgow, was, at the Kilmarnock sheriff's court on Friday last, fined and disqualified from holding a licence for motor-driving on pleading guilty to allowing another person to drive the motor-van he had charge of, although that person held a licence to drive; that Mr. Kenney has been with the same employer for eight years since he left school and this is the first complaint against him; and that he is the only person working in a household of five; and if he will review the case with a view to the second part of the sentence being remitted and the driving licence restored?

Mr. SKELTON: My right hon. Friend is inquiring into the case, and will communicate with the hon. Member as soon as possible.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Cannot something be done? Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the terrible hardship on this man being deprived of his livelihood?

Mr. SKELTON: I am well aware of the circumstances, but I cannot add anything to the answer which I have given.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I will try to raise this matter on the Adjournment tomorrow.

SHOPS, EDINBURGH (CHRISTMAS CLOSING HOURS).

Mr. GUY (by Private Notice): asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if his attention has been drawn to the action of the Edinburgh Town Council in making an order suspending the operation of the general closing hours of shops in Edinburgh for a period of four days during the Christmas season, following on an order by him suspending the hours for six days during the same season, making a total of 10 days excluding Sunday, and what action he proposes to take in this matter?

Mr. SKELTON: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, the action taken by the local authority is not a matter in which my right hon. Friend has any power to intervene.

Mr. GUY: Is the action that was taken by the local authority, following upon an Order made by the Secretary of State, not in fact a variation of the Order.

Mr. SKELTON: I cannot answer legal questions on this matter because I should have to refer to the Statute, but I can tell my hon. Friend that the Order was made by the Secretary of State under Section 7 (I) of the Act, on the authority of the following words:
He may suspend the operation during the Christmas season or in connection with any other special occasion.
The Order made by the Edinburgh Town Council is under Sub-section (2) of the same Section, which provides that, subject to their not issuing an Order for an aggregate of more than seven days in the year, a local authority may, in connection with any such occasion, issue such an Order.

Mr. GUY: Will the hon. Gentleman consider the Proviso to Sub-section (2), which limits the power of the local authority to make an Order suspending the hours for more than seven days and is it not a fact that this order suspends the hours for 10 days?

Mr. SKELTON: Yes, Sir. I follow my hon. Friend's point, but I do not propose to argue the legal question involved, and for this reason, that, even assuming that the local authority misinterpreted the Section upon which they
have acted, it is not within my right hon. Friend's power to correct their action.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: In view of the fact that this is the first time that this anomaly has arisen in connection with the operation of closing orders under the Shops Acts, and also that this is the first time that shop assistants will have to work extra hours during the Christmas period for 10 days instead of six, or even four—probably without any extra payment—will the hon. Gentleman be good enough to consult with the Secretary of State for Home Affairs, to see whether this new point, which has never arisen before, can be got over by an amendment of the law?

Mr. SKELTON: Yes, Sir; I shall be very willing to do that.

Oral Answers to Questions — AVIATION.

LONDON-CROYDON (TRAVELLING FACILITIES).

Mr. ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: 51.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether steps are being taken to reduce the time spent travelling between London and Croydon, with a view to speeding up British air services?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Philip Sassoon): The Air Ministry is fully alive to the desirability of reducing the time spent in travelling between London and Croydon; but the existing road service cannot be greatly accelerated without undue risk, and I regret that no alternative scheme has been produced which would be practicable from the point of view of cost.

Mr. ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Have any estimates been made of the comparative costs of speeding up the road or rail communication between London and Croydon, and can the hon. Gentleman tell us on which of these two alternatives his Department is concentrating?

Sir P. SASSOON: We are concentrating on all matters for accelerating communications, but up to now all these schemes have proved too expensive.

Sir WILFRID SUGDEN: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any details of a possible aerodrome in or about St. Pancras or Euston?

Sir P. SASSOON: I cannot add to my answer.

GROUND ORGANISATION (UNDEVELOPED TERRITORY).

Mr. SIMMONDS: 54.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether His Majesty's Government accept responsibility for the ground organisation necessary for the safety of British air services where they traverse undeveloped territory?

Sir P. SASSOON: Broadly speaking, the primary responsibility for ground organisation rests with the operating company. The circumstances of each service are, however, specially considered, and the existing agreements with Imperial Airways provide for assistance by His Majesty's Government in a number of directions.

Mr. SIMMONDS: In view of the fact that that decision is liable to prevent new air services developing throughout the Empire, will His Majesty's Government reconsider the matter to see whether they cannot undertake a more general and fruitful policy?

IMPERIAL AIR COMMUNICATIONS.

Captain P. MACDONALD: 52.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he is yet in a position to indicate the nature of the Government's proposals with regard to the further development of commercial air routes within the Empire; and, if not, whether any announcement will be made before the House reassembles after the Christmas recess?

Mr. SIMMONDS: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he can now inform the House of the results of his efforts to accelerate and increase our Empire air services both for mails and passengers; and when such revised schedules will come into operation?

Sir P. SASSOON: By leave of Mr. Speaker, and with the permission of the House, I shall make a statement at the end of Questions.

At the end of Questions:

Sir P. SASSOON: I will, with the permission of the House, make as full a statement concerning the development of Empire air communications as is possible at this stage, on behalf of my Noble
Friend the Secretary of State for Air and also of my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General, without whose active support the scheme could not have been evolved.
The proposals are of a far-reaching character, and represent the results of many months' work by the Air Ministry and the Post Office, in consultation with Imperial Airways. They were approved by His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom in the late summer, and full details were subsequently communicated to the other Empire Governments concerned. It will be appreciated that, until the views of all the Governments concerned have been received, the scheme must be regarded as a basis for discussion only, since their agreement and co-operation are essential. Let me repeat, this scheme depends for its realisation upon the willing co-operation and support of all the Governments concerned, so that the whole matter rests at present on a purely provisional basis, and my statement this afternoon must not be taken as prejudging the issue.
The scheme contains three main features. In the first place, there is to be a very material improvement on present time schedules between the several parts of the Empire concerned; secondly, there is to be a substantial increase in the frequency of services; and, thirdly, all first-class mail to the Empire countries covered by the projected services is in future to be carried by air. As regards schedules, the scheme as suggested to the other Governments concerned envisages a schedule of just over two days to India, two and a-half days to East Africa, four days to the Cape, four days to Singapore, and seven days to Australia. As regards frequencies, provision is made for four, or possibly five, services a week to India, three services a week to Singapore and to East Africa, and two to South Africa and Australia respectively. With regard to the letter rate proposed, I can as yet say nothing definite, but we hope that, in so far as concerns letters posted in the United Kingdom for Empire destinations, subject to the successful outcome of our negotiations with the Governments concerned, it may be in the region of the present Empire rate of 1½d., but this will apply per half-ounce
instead of to the first ounce as at present. I may say that correspondence covering at least eight sides of special light paper can be sent within the half-ounce limit. It will, of course, be for the other participating Governments to fix their own postal charges.
An integral feature of the scheme is a comprehensive programme for the development of the ground organisation of Empire air routes on a basis which will enable the services, which will cater for passenger as well as mail traffic, to operate by night as freely as by day.
Finally, I should add that it will not be practicable to give further details as regards finance, types of aircraft, etc., until the negotiations with the other Governments concerned are completed; and, in particular, I can as yet give no date for the inauguration of the scheme. The provision of the necessary fleet, ground organisation, etc., will require a period of something like two years before a project of this magnitude, constituting, as it does, the largest step forward which has yet been taken in the development of Empire air communications, could be brought into full operation. Further, on the postal side, the Postmaster-General has asked me to make it clear that there is little possibility of introducing the 1½d. postal rate for Imperial first-class correspondence carried by air before 1937.

Mr. ATTLEE: While welcoming the encouraging statement made by the right hon. Gentleman, may I ask him whether there will be an opportunity of discussing this subject, and whether any Supplementary Estimate will be required for the inauguration of the service?

Sir P. SASSOON: I do not think that any Supplementary Estimate is needed for the moment. We are carrying on with the inauguration of the necessary work.

Captain MAC DONALD: While congratulating my right hon. Friend on his statement, may I at the same time ask him what Governments concerned have not yet acquiesced in this scheme, and when he expects that agreement will be reached?

Sir P. SASSOON: I am afraid I cannot answer that question.

Mr. SIMMONDS: May I also ask my right hon. Friend, on behalf of many Members of the House who are particularly interested in this matter, to accept our congratulations? Further, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that, so far as the aircraft are concerned, we have a certain leeway to make up; and will he, therefore, consider whether he ought not immediately to take some steps to place orders for prototype high-speed aircraft, in order that the scheme may come into operation as soon as possible?

Sir P. SASSOON: We are fully aware of the importance of taking every step to facilitate an early commencement of the service.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

ROAD ACCIDENTS (SKIDDING).

Mr. DENVILLE: 55.
asked the Minister of Transport the number of accidents caused by motor vehicles skidding in the following groups: fatal accidents, non-fatal but in which persons were injured, accidents to vehicles; and what proposal has he to make with a view to minimising the numbers?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Hore-Belisha): In the return for 1933 skidding was given as a main or a contributory cause in 290 fatal accidents in which motor vehicles were involved, and in 98 in which pedal cyclists were involved. Corresponding figures for non-fatal accidents are not available. I do everything in my power to encourage the provision of non-skid surfaces on the roads, and tyres on motor vehicles are required by the regulations to be free from any defect which may cause danger.

Mr. DENVILLE: Is it not a fact that skidding is caused by the roads in most parts of the country being very smooth? Is not this a national and not a parochial affair, and is there anything which the House can do by which the Minister can have power to deal with it?

Mr. SIMMONDS: Has the hon. Gentleman power to compel authorities who refuse to put their roads in order, to do so?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: No, I am afraid I have not that power.

LONDON PASSENGER TRANSPORT BOARD (STAFF).

Mr. McENTEE: 56.
asked the Minister of Transport what is the approximate number of persons employed by the London Passenger Transport Board under the following headings: clerical and supervisory, shopworkers, and running staff for omnibuses, tramcars, and trains, separately; and what is the approximate number under each heading at present subject to a superannuation scheme?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: As the answer is somewhat long I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

I am informed by the London Passenger Transport Board that their staff number approximately 75,000, of whom about 4,500 are salaried grades and 70,500 wages grades.

The wages grades are sub-divided as follow:


Operating staff
…
…
46,000


Engineering staff
…
…
23,500


Other staff
…
…
1,000

I am not able to give an analysis of the staff in the form desired by the hon. Member. The board's records do not enable information as to the members of superannuation schemes to be given in the form required in the question but I am informed that 2,600 of the salaried staff and 5,850 of the wages staff are members of superannuation, endowment or pension funds and that, in addition, there are ex-gratia pension and grant schemes provisionally adopted by the board from the constituent undertakings which cover all members of the board's staff of long service.

TOLL ROADS AND BRIDGES.

Mr. STOURTON: 58.
asked the Minister of Transport if his attention has been called to the inconvenience, danger, and expense caused to road users by toll-gates on main roads; the number of such toll-gates there are in the country; and when it is proposed to abolish them through legislation?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: There are to-day three toll roads and 34 toll bridges on classified roads in Great Britain. I should like to see these roads and bridges freed. Section 53 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, has given highway authorities
power to take them over by agreement or, save in certain cases of statutory undertakings, compulsorily; and I have told the highway authorities that I am ready to consider applications for grants from the Road Fund towards approved expenditure so incurred.

Mr. STOURTON: Is my hon. Friend aware that toll bridges are a complete anachronism at the present day and that toll-bridge owners are drawing fantastic rates of interest on trivial capital outlay made as far back as George III?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: My answer shows that I agree with the general purpose that my hon. Friend has in view.

Mr. STOURTON: May I take it from my hon. Friend's reply that we shall see an end of these toll bridges before very long?

Captain P. MACDONALD: Will my hon. Friend undertake, as his predecessors did, to allow the public assessor to act as arbitrator in cases where these bridges are to be taken over, so as to save the expenses of local authorities?

DRIVING TEST EXAMINEES.

Mrs. COPELAND: 60.
asked the Minister of Transport whether, in appointing examiners for motor car driving, he will consider the suitability of selecting those men who have driven cars for many years, such as chauffeurs, and who have had no accidents?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Yes, Sir, the selection boards will take such qualifications into consideration.

Mr. ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Does my hon. Friend propose to invite the assistance of the Automobile Association and the Royal Automobile Club in choosing these examiners?

RECORDS.

Sir COOPER RAWSON: 61.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he can give any information regarding the proposed amendment of the regulations relating to the keeping of records?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I have received certain advice from the Transport Advisory Council and, as a result, propose to publish as soon as possible the draft of revised regulations. Before making the regulation I must, in accordance
with the provisions of the Act, consult with representative organisations.

Sir C. RAWSON: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind the particular cases of the small trader, the small owner driver and the small business?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I think that that has been largely the purpose of the revision.

BRIDGES AND LEVEL CROSSINGS (GRANTS).

Mr. PARKINSON: (by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Transport whether in view of the adjournment of the House to-morrow he can make any statement as to his ability to meet applications from highway authorities for grants towards further schemes dealing with weak bridges during the remainder of the current financial year?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I am happy to be able to inform the House that with the concurrence of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, an additional provision of £500,000 will be made available out of the Road Fund for grants to schemes for the reconstruction of weak bridges and for other urgent improvements with which highway authorities are ready to proceed immediately. I am issuing at once grants at the rate of 75 per cent. towards 25 bridge schemes estimated to cost in all about £400,000. These are additional to about 80 schemes for reconstructing weak bridges or replacing level crossings, at a total cost of nearly £670,000, which I have already approved during the year. The consideration of further applications is also far advanced. It will thus be seen that highway authorities are being assisted to put in hand at once a, substantial volume of useful work.

Mr. THORNE: Do I understand from the reply that the Chancellor of the Exchequer pinched a certain amount of money out of the Road Fund?

Oral Answers to Questions — OVERHEAD HIGH TENSION ELECTRIC LINES.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: 59.
asked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been called to the lack of control by local authorities over the erection or installation of high tension electrical
devices; and whether he has yet considered what steps can be taken to remove this danger?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Overhead high tension electric lines are subject to the regulations made by the Electricity Commissioners for securing the safety of the public, but if the hon. Member would let me know in what respects he considers danger arises, I will look further into the matter.

Mr. DAVIES: Is it not grossly unfair to local authorities in their duty of looking after the interests of the community, that regulations of the Electricity Board can over-ride their rights in this matter?

Oral Answers to Questions — BECHUANALAND.

Mr. PARKINSON: 62.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he can now state what measures are being taken to carry out Sir Alan Pim's recommendations for the improvement of the economic situation in Bechuanaland and by what means the necessary expenditure will be found?

Sir VICTOR WARRENDER (Vice-Chamberlain of the Household): I have been asked to reply. Funds for carrying out all these recommendations, except those relating to water supply, have already been provided either from the general revenue of the Protectorate which, as my hon. Friend is aware, is in receipt of a grant-in-aid from the United Kingdom Exchequer, or from the Colonial Development Fund. As regards the recommendations relating to water supply, my right hon. Friend hopes to be in a position to put forward an application to the Colonial Development Advisory Committee very shortly.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOUTHERN RHODESIA.

Mr. LUNN: 63.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether, in view of the fact that the constitution of Southern Rhodesia lays down that no law may impose any disability or discrimination on the ground of race, he has raised objection to the Maize Control Amendment Act on the ground that the natives are not to benefit from the higher quota rates which are to be granted to Europeans?

Sir V. WARRENDER: The provisions of the legislation to which the hon. Member refers are somewhat complicated, but it does not appear that they discriminate unfairly between European and native producers. The Governor was authorised in May last to assent to the Act, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Southern Rhodesia Constitution.

Mr. LUNN: May. I ask the hon. Gentleman if he will ask his right hon. Friend to reply to my question in which I point out that while the constitution of Southern Rhodesia lays down that no law may impose any disability or discrimination on the ground of race, the Maize Control Amendment Act is contrary to this constitution in that it provides better facilities and higher payment for non-natives than for natives.

Sir V. WARRENDER: I will do as the hon. Gentleman suggests, but if he will refer to the reply he will find that it states that my right hon Friend does not think there is any unfair discrimination.

Mr. PALING: Is it not a fact that the reply admits that there is discrimination, but qualifies it by saying it is not unfair, whereas the constitution says there shall be no discrimination whatever.

Oral Answers to Questions — PLUMAGE ACT.

Mr. MABANE: 73.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that plumage of certain birds is being freely sold in this country, and particularly in the West End of London, in contravention of the Plumage Act; and what steps he proposes to take to prevent the continuance of this practice?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The Importation of Plumage (Prohibition) Act, 1921, does not prohibit the sale of plumage. I am aware that plumage, the import of which is prohibited by the Act, has been offered for sale, but inquiries made about a year ago showed that the plumage had been imported before the Act came into operation on 1st April, 1922. If my hon. Friend has information as to any cases in which prohibited plumage imported since that date has been offered for sale and will let me have the necessary particulars, I shall be happy to have inquiries made into the matter.

Mr. MABANE: Do I understand from that reply that the osprey plumes being sold in London are being sold on the supposition that they were imported into the country before the Act of 1922 came into force?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have only given an answer with regard to the cases which have been brought to my knowledge. If the hon. Gentleman has any further cases, I shall be glad to look into them.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

COAL MINES ACT, 1930 (EVASIONS).

Mr. MARTIN: 74.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether the Central Council of Coalowners has yet put forward any proposals designed to prevent evasions of the provisions of the Coal Mines Act, 1930, other than such prevention as may be achieved by co-ordination of minimum prices and separation of inland and export quotas?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Ernest Brown): No, Sir.

Mr. MARTIN: If the Secretary for Mines wishes to carry out the provisions of that part of the Mines Act, is it not essential that something should be done to prevent the evasion which we know is still continuing?

Mr. BROWN: The hon. Member is under a misapprehension. I do not carry out the powers. They are carried out by the Central Council of Coalowners.

Mr. MARTIN: Was not the action which the hon. Gentleman formerly took found to be very effective in making the Central Council carry out the requirements of the Act?

Mr. BROWN: The hon. Member is in error again. The action I took then only takes effect in January next.

DISTRICT BOARD MINIMUM PRICES.

Mr. MARTIN: 75.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether he is aware that allowances amounting to as much as 6d. per ton in some cases are being made to middlemen under an agreement which stipulates that such allowance should not be passed on; and whether any case has arisen of such agreements being broken with the effect that consumers can purchase
coal at less than the minimum price fixed by the district board under the terms of the Coal Mines Act, 1930?

Mr. E. BROWN: I understand that under conditions of sale prescribed by the Durham Executive Board in accordance with the provisions of Clause 55A of the Durham Scheme, a commission of 6d. per ton is allowed to agents in respect of coal exported on condition that the allowance is not passed on. In order to ensure that the terms of the conditions of sale are faithfully adhered to, the executive board employ, as may be necessary, firms of accountants to examine the books of agents as well as those of the coalowners.

Mr. MARTIN: May I ask in the first place, what is the hon. Gentleman's definition of "export coal," particularly in the case of coal shipped to London from where it might or might not be sent abroad? Secondly, May I ask whether it is not too difficult for the people to whom the hon. Gentleman refers, whose function it is to inquire into evasions, to detect cases, or trace evasions, when they do examine books?

Mr. BROWN: The hon. Member will understand that the new schemes operating from 1st January will make a distinction between coastwise coal and export coal. It is true there have been allegations and they are being looked into.

Mr. MARTIN: Does the hon. Gentleman get much help in these matters from Lord Hindley?

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

Major MILNER: 78.
asked the Minister of Pensions how many widows' pensions have been forfeited on the ground of alleged unworthiness during the three years prior to the latest convenient date; on what authority such forfeiture is made and by whom; whether there is any, and, if so, what opportunity given to rebut such allegations; and whether appeals against such forfeiture are made?

The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Major Tryon): In the three years ended on 30th September last, 810 widows' pensions have been forfeited on the ground of unworthiness, while 33 have been restored. Widows' pensions may be forfeited under
Article 10 of the Royal Warrant of December, 1919, by the Ministry, on the decision of a Statutory body, the Special Grants Committee, in all cases referred to them in accordance with their powers under the War Pensions Acts. In every case full opportunity is afforded to the pensioner to state her case, in person or in writing, and any appeal is carefully considered.

Major MILNER: Has the widow the opportunity of appearing before the Special Grants Committee, and is that an independent body?

Major TRYON: They are an independent body and make their own inquiries, and we are also given valuable help by the local pensions committees. I may add that the point is that 117,000 War widows have remarried, and it would be contrary to the intention of this House if some of them were able to retain their pensions by dispensing with the marriage ceremony.

Major MILNER: Does the right hon. Gentleman think he ought to make that suggestion? May I ask if he is aware that there is very considerable feeling in regard to the nature of the investigation and a feeling among many widows that they have suffered injustice, and will he look further into the matter?

Major TRYON: I do not think that the House is likely to want details of these cases, but in the only two cases that the hon. Member has sent us recently, the facts are exceptionally discreditable to the two widows.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARMS TRAFFIC.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: 79.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether hs is aware of an agreement between Imperial Chemical Industries, Limited, or any of its subsidiary companies, and the firm of Dupont de Nemours concerning the sale of munitions of war; when such arrangement was made; and what were its terms.

Mr. BLINDELL (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply. My hon. Friend has no knowledge of any agreement concerning the sale of munitions of war between the firms mentioned.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Is it not time that the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr.
Morgan Jones) ceased to put questions based upon proceedings before an incompetent tribunal in another country?

Mr. JONES: May I ask whether the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) has any right to draw such a deduction concerning the source of my information?

Oral Answers to Questions — LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

RUSSIA (EXECUTIONS).

Captain ARCHIBALD RAMSAY: 80.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that over 80 persons have been executed without any trial in Moscow and Petrograd during the last two weeks; and will he make immediate representations to the League of Nations, with a view to organising a combined protest against this infringement of Article IX of the League of Nations Covenant?

The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Mr. Eden): According to my information it does not appear that these persons were executed without trial. The terms of the Covenant provide the League of Nations with no locus standi for intervention with the Soviet Government in such a matter.

Captain RAMSAY: While accepting the statement of the right hon. Gentleman that there is some form of trial, is it not a fact that, pending further machinery being at the disposal of the League, it is the essential duty of the League to protest if any signatory of the Covenant fails to carry out in the letter and the spirit the ordinary course of Justice such as civilised nations understand; are we to understand that the right hon. Gentleman is satisfied that the spirit and the letter of the Covenant have been fulfilled and if not, does he still propose to do nothing about the matter?

Mr. EDEN: Article IX which the hon. and gallant Member quotes has nothing whatever to do with the matter. So far as I am aware, the League has no locus standi in the matter.

Captain RAMSAY: Is the right hon. Gentleman Satisfied that there is no infringement?

SAAR PLEBISCITE.

Brigadier-General SPEARS: 81.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign
Affairs whether he will urge upon the Council of the League of Nations the importance of making clear by means of posters, etc., that a vote for the status quo in the Saar plebiscite will not permanently preclude the Saarlanders from eventual reunion with Germany?

Mr. EDEN: No, Sir. No approach to the League Council in the sense proposed is contemplated.

Brigadier-General SPEARS: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the local Press have been at some pains to conceal the fact that if the inhabitants vote for the status quo it does not mean that they will not be expected to come into Germany?

Mr. EDEN: The Committee of three have made certain observations on the matter on which it would be highly improper for me to comment.

Mr. PIKE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the same thing applies to the peace ballot proceeding in this country?

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIAN EMBASSY (DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY).

Mr. STOURTON: 82.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many of those connected with the Soviet Embassy in London enjoy diplomatic immunity; and how the number compares with the immunity granted to the personnel of other embassies?

Mr. EDEN: There are at the Soviet Embassy 15 officials, diplomatic and clerical, who are regarded by His Majesty's Government as entitled to claim diplomatic immunity. This figure includes the trade representative and the deputy-trade representative, who are entitled to diplomatic privilege under Article 2 of the Temporary Commercial Agreement with the Soviet Union of 16th April, 1930, but does not include the wives and children of the officials concerned. In addition, there are about 15 servants employed at the Embassy who also enjoy diplomatic privilege. These figures are less than those in the case of the embassies of France, Germany, Italy, Japan and the United States, and about the same as those in the case of the embassies of Belgium and Poland.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY (SHIPBUILDING ORDERS).

Miss WARD: 84.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in order to keep an even balance of skilled labour in all shipbuilding areas, he will take into consideration, in allocating the order for the "Ark Royal," the fact that, compared with November, 1933, in October of this year shipbuilding employment on the Clyde had increased by nearly 40 per cent., in Belfast by approximately 93 per cent., and on the North-West by over 10 per cent., whereas on the North-East Coast the increase was only 4 per cent.?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Lord Stanley): I can assure my hon. Friend that all relevant considerations will be taken into account when allocating this order.

Miss WARD: May I ask if my right hon. Friend is aware that in these areas the placing of a cruiser confers considerable financial advantages upon the Clyde and upon the Government of Northern Ireland, and does he not think that Admiralty orders to all areas should be placed upon an equal footing?

Lord STANLEY: I cannot draw any comparison between the various shipbuilding areas, but I would remind the hon. Lady that only recently a cruiser was allocated to the North-East district.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: May I ask, in view of the fact that in both the question and the answer it is stated that the Clyde area has received special privileges from this Government in the way of financial grants, the same as Belfast, whether that is the case? I am quite ready to believe it about Belfast, but I want to know whether it is the case with the Clyde.

Lord STANLEY: All districts are treated equally. The hon. Member's district got the other cruiser on the same occasion.

Miss WARD: Is not the allocation of that cruiser a great tribute to the competitive value of the Tyne in quoting for orders?

Lord APSLEY: Would not the allocation of a few cruisers to the depressed areas solve the whole situation?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. LANSBURY: May I ask the Prime Minister what will be the business when we reassemble?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): Monday, 28th January, and Tuesday, 29th January: Committee stage of the following Supplementary Estimates:

Class V., Vote 8A—Unemployment Assistance Board.
Class V., Vote 1A—Grants to Local Authorities in Distressed Areas in England and Wales.
Class V., Vote 13, being a similar Estimate for Scotland.
Class V., Vote 14—Depressed Areas Fund.

Wednesday, 30th January, and Thursday, 31st January: Second Reading of the Housing Bill, and Committee stage of the necessary Financial Resolution.
Friday, 1st February: The business will be announced when the House reassembles after the Recess.
On any day, if there is time, other Orders may be taken.

Mr. LANSBURY: As there is a little doubt about when the Housing Bill will be circulated, can the right hon. Gentleman tell us when Members will be able to see that Bill; and can he tell us when the India Bill will be ready and available to Members? Can we also have any information about the Herring Fishery Bill?

The PRIME MINISTER: As regards the Housing Bill, we hope to get it out on or about the 16th January. As regards the India Bill, we hope it will be out on the 22nd January. That will be in very good time for a full consideration of the Bill before Members are asked to discuss it. As regards the Herring Fishery Bill, I am very sorry I cannot commit myself to a date, but it will be out during the Recess, in time to take it early after we resume.

Mr. N. MACLEAN: Will the Scottish Herring Fishery Bill be circulated at the same time as the Bill for England and Wales?

The PRIME MINISTER: That is so.

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: Is the statement which has appeared in the Press that the
Second Reading of the India Bill is likely to be taken on 4th February authoritative, and is that the time when we are likely to discuss it?

The PRIME MINISTER: While I have seen nothing in the Press about it I can assure the hon. Member that no date has yet been fixed.

Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLE: Is it the intention of the Government to introduce a Bill dealing with the question of ribbon development?

The PRIME MINISTER: I have nothing to add to what I have said on that subject.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Is it the intention, when we meet again, to suspend the Eleven o'Clock Rule to take any further Measures than those announced? When does the right hon. Gentleman intend to take the Measure dealing with the judges, after it has received authorisation in another place?

The PRIME MINISTER: Regarding the suspension of the Eleven o'Clock Rule, it is never suspended unless there is immediate need.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to suspend the Rule for this judiciary Measure?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am afraid that I do not understand. Does the hon. Member suggest that the Bill should be taken after Eleven o'Clock?

Mr. BUCHANAN: I do not want you to take it at all.

The PRIME MINISTER: We shall take it in just the ordinary way in relation to the importance of the Bill.

Mr. MABANE: Will the Prime Minister assure the House that he will do his best, in drafting the Money Resolution of the Housing Bill, to see that the House is not unduly restricted in its power to move Amendments to the Bill?

Mr. LANSBURY: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us how long he proposes to keep the House to-night, and what is the object of suspending the Rule?

The PRIME MINISTER: The Government are asking the House to suspend the Eleven o'Clock Rule in order to get the first two Orders of the Day—the
Electricity (Supply) Bill and the British Shipping (Assistance) Bill. It would be very advantageous for these Bills to be disposed of.

Mr. LANSBURY: Does the right hon. Gentleman want the Report and Third Reading of the Electricity Bill?

The PRIME MINISTER: There are the Lords Amendments to the Depressed Areas Bill. Those three Bills ought to be finished.

Mr. LANSBURY: Finished? Surely the right hon. Gentleman only wants the Committee stage of the Shipping Bill,

and does not propose to take the Report and Third Reading? I only ask in order to request the right hon. Gentleman and the Patronage Secretary to use their influence with their hon. and right hon. Friends to expedite business in regard to the Electricity Bill.

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 191; Noes, 39.

Division No. 29.]
AYES.
[4.4 p.m.


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
Milne, Charles


Albery, Irving James
Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)
Elmley, Viscount
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Moreing, Adrian C.


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer'ties)


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Fleming, Edward Lascelles
Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.


Apsley, Lord
Fox, Sir Gifford
Nail, Sir Joseph


Assheton, Ralph
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Astbury, Lieut. Com. Frederick Wolfe
Goff, Sir Park
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.


Atholl, Duchess of
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Orr Ewing, I. L.


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Peake, Osbert


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Pearson, William G.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Grimston, R. V.
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Pike, Cecil F.


Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Potter, John


Bernays, Robert
Guy, J. C. Morrison
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Blindell, James
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Procter, Major Henry Adam


Bower, Commander Robert Tatton
Harbord, Arthur
Pybus, Sir John


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Broadbent, Colonel John
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
Ramsbotham, Herwald


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Ramsden, Sir Eugene


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)


Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Held, Capt. A. Cunningham-


Burnett, John George
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.


Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Karr, Hamilton W.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Keyes, Admiral Sir Roger
Rosbotham, Sir Thomas


Carver, Major William H.
Kirkpatrick, William M.
Runelman, Rt. Hon. Walter


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Knight, Holford
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)


Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S. W.)
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard


Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.


Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Savery, Samuel Servington


Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.


Clarke, Frank
Levy, Thomas
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin


Clayton, Sir Christopher
Lindsay, Kenneth (Kilmarnock)
Skelton, Archibald Noel


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Lindsay, Noel Ker
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Lloyd, Geoffrey
Somerville, Annesley A (Windsor)


Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G. (Wd. Gr'n)
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Colman, N. C. D.
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Loftus, Pierce C.
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.


Conant, R. J. E.
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Cooke, Douglas
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Stones, James


Cooper, A. Dull
Mabane, William
Stourton, Hon. John J.


Copeland, Ida
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
McKie, John Hamilton
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton
Sutcliffe, Harold


Cross, R. H.
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Tate, Mavis Constance


Crossley, A. C.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Marsden, Commander Arthur
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)


Dawton, Sir Philip
Martin, Thomas B.
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Danville, Alfred
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Train, John


Dickie, John P.
Meller, Sir Richard James
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)
Weymouth, Viscount
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)


Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)



Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.
Willougby de Eresby, Lord
Sir Frederick Thomson and Sir


Watt, Captain George Steven H.
Womersley, Walter James
George Penny.


NOES.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot


Attlee, Clement Richard
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Milner, Major James


Batey, Joseph
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
Parkinson, John Allen


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Grundy, Thomas W.
Rea, Walter Russell


Buchanan, George
Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)


Daggar, George
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Kirkwood, David
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, North)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Thorne, William James


Dobbie, William
Leonard, William
Tinker, John Joseph


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)
Logan, David Gilbert
West, F. R.


Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Lunn, William
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Gardner, Benjamin Walter
McEntee, Valentine L.



George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. John and Mr. Paling.


Bill read the Third time, and passed.

BILLS PRESENTED.

HOUSING (SCOTLAND) BILL,

"to make further and better provision for the prevention of overcrowding in Scotland, the re-development of areas in connection with the provision of housing accommodation, and the re-conditioning of buildings, to make provision for the establishment in Scotland of a housing advisory committee and of commissions for the management of local authorities' houses, to amend the enactments relating to the housing operations of public utility societies and other bodies, to provide for the consolidation of housing accounts and subsidies, and to amend the enactments relating to housing in Scotland; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid," presented by Sir Godfrey Collins; supported by the Lord Advocate, the Solicitor-General for Scotland, and Mr. Skelton; to be read a Second time upon Monday, 28th January, and to be printed. [Bill 18.]

HOUSING BILL,

"to make further and better provision for the abatement and prevention of overcrowding, the re-development of areas in large towns in connection with the provision of housing accommodation therein, and the re-conditioning of buildings, to make provision for the establishment of a housing advisory committee and of commissions for the management of local authorities' houses, to amend the enactments relating to the housing operations of public utility societies and other bodies, to provide for the consolidation of housing accounts, to amend the enactments relating to housing; and for purposes connected with
the matters aforesaid," presented by Sir Hilton Young; supported by the Attorney-General and Mr. Shakespeare; to be read a Second time upon Monday, 28th January, and to be printed. [Bill 19.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to,—

Depressed Areas (Development and Improvement) Bill (changed to "Special Areas (Development and Improvement) Bill"), with Amendments.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to safeguard the independence of the Judiciary." [Judiciary (Safeguarding) Bill [Lords.]

And also a Bill, intituled, "An Act to amend the Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act, 1925, by increasing to nineteen the number of puisne judges who may be appointed to be attached to the King's Bench Division of the High Court, by making provision for the appointment and precedence of a Vice-President of the Court of Appeal, by permitting certain orders of court in matrimonial proceedings to be made before decree absolute, and by providing for the hearing in camera of certain evidence in nullity proceedings; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid." [Supreme Court of Judicature (Amendment) [Lords.]

SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE (AMENDMENT) BILL [Lords].

Read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday 28th January, and to be printed. [Bill 20.]

Orders of the Day — ELECTRICITY (SUPPLY) BILL.

As amended, considered.

Mr. SPEAKER: I do not propose to select the first new Clause standing in the name of the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams). Before allowing him to move the second one, I would like him to explain why it is not outside the scope of the Bill. It appears to me that it has nothing to do with Section 7 of the Electricity (Supply) Act.

4.14 p.m.

Mr. WILLIAMS: It is true, technically speaking, that this Bill is outside the scope of Section 7 of the Act of 1926, but it seems to me that the provisions of Clause 1 have reactions on the operation of Section 7. I think that to some extent the general financial provisions of Section 7 are materially affected by the provisions of Clause 2, and to some extent by Clause 4. I have not provided myself with a very careful examination of the precise relationship of Section 7 of the 1926 Act, but Section 7 does, in part, dominate subsequent Clauses, such as Clauses 11, 12 and 13. Section 7 cannot stand by itself. I believe that Section 7 will be modified in this Bill, and by the Preamble.

Mr. SPEAKER: I do not know whether the Minister can further enlighten me on the point.

4.15 p.m.

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Hore-Belisha): I am bound to say that I cannot see the relevance of the proposed new Clause. It is expressed as being a Bill to authorise the board to make certain arrangements and so forth, none of which purposes affects the terms on which it can buy from selected stations and the terms on which selected stations can buy from the board. In other words, none of the purposes of this Bill goes to the root of Section 7, which my hon. Friend desires to amend. On the other hand, the Section seems to go to the very roots of the Electricity Supply Act, 1926, upon which the whole grid system is based, whereas this Bill, of course, is much more narrow and confined in its scope and, indeed, specifically deals only with the
matters mentioned in the Title to the Bill. I cannot see any possible relevance of this new Clause to the Bill, and it is a Clause of such importance that, if it were carried, it would involve a complete reconstitution of the whole grid system.

4.16 p.m.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Under Clause 1 the Central Electricity Board will be given power to make arrangements with certain non-selected stations. As a result of those arrangements they may be able to run non-selected stations at times when otherwise they would not be running, and they may arrange to buy supplies from non-selected stations for grid purposes. As a sequel to that, they may be in a position to do what they cannot do now to the same extent, namely, to order selected stations to shut down during certain periods and, therefore, to force selected stations to buy current which otherwise they would not compel them to buy. If Clause 1 does not pass, the problem with which I am seeking to deal does not arise. This is a new problem created by the operation of Clause 1. If the Clause does not become law, I think that my new Clause is of no importance. It is primarily because of Clause 1 that it is necessary to have my new Clause.

Sir JOSEPH NALL: May I submit this point? One of the objects of the Bill is seriously to upset the grid tariff arrangements contained in the Act of 1926. The reaction of Clauses 1 and 2 is strictly relevant to the grid basis contained in the Act of 1926. Therefore I submit that it is important to consider an adjustment relevant to the change now made by the main Clauses of this Blil.

Mr. SPEAKER: It appears to me that whatever connection it may have is so remote that I do not propose to select it.

CLAUSE 1.—(Arrangements between Central Electricity Board and authorised undertakers.)

4.19 p.m.

Sir J. NALL: I beg to move, in page 2, line 19, after "Board," to insert:
taking into account the annual expenses of the Board on income account under such arrangement and a proper proportion of the Board's general expenses (including interest and sinking fund charges) with such margin as the Electricity Commissioners may allow.
Under the Act of 1926 the board have to frame their charges so that their income will balance their outgoings, including interest and sinking fund charges. The board have already framed charges for most of the country. It follows that, if their estimates are correct, their interest and sinking fund charges will be covered by the grid tariff. But the operation of the Clause as it stands may well result in prejudicing the grid tariff, and so our object in this Amendment is to make clearer the somewhat indefinite and certainly illusory phrase in the Bill regarding financial loss by the board. We have heard several times of agreements which have been already made by the board along the lines of this Clause, and it has been alleged that in those agreements the charges are uneconomic and unsound, and throw a burden on third parties who have no say in the matter.
We understand that in the South-West England area the board offered without success to pay a great proportion of the cost to stations dealt with under the Clause in order to induce the owners to come into the grid at all, and it is really in the interest of the board and those people who have to pay the board's charges that the owners of a non-selected station should not be able to make too hard a bargain with the board, as for instance in the case of Wimbledon and Dorking. Wimbledon got away with a special arrangement by which it pays 40 per cent. less than its neighbours, because it has a highly efficient undertaking which could show that its costs were cheaper than the grid tariff. So, in order to get them in, not for the advantage of other undertakers by bringing in a cheap supply but in order to shut up this small, cheap undertaking and bring its supply into the grid, they are able to drive a hard bargain and get away with this 40 per cent. off. I do not see why the consumers of Wimbledon should get some very special concession in this way to the disadvantage, shall we say, of West Ham or Poplar. It would appear that the board's officers went to Wimbledon at the time of the championship and got mixed up with the tennis crowd.
Unless these charges under special arrangements carry their fair proportion of the board's expenses, it is obvious
that what they do not carry will have to be borne by the other undertakers and their consumers. This Amendment is really a mild one in dealing with the question of overhead charges. There is some £16,000,000 of the board's expenditure which has, so to speak, gone down the drain on the question of standardisation in the North-East area, and the whole interest and sinking fund charges on that £16,000,000 are spread over all the authorised undertakers, who have to pay a levy to the commissioners. The consumers who get these special supplies will make no contribution whatever to this levy. They are already getting away with that much in comparison with other consumers, and it is at least reasonable that these special supplies should bear their proper proportion of the board's own charges, even if they do not bear the commissioners' charges. Bad as it is to have these special arrangements at all, it is really aggravating the hardship on consumers in the same branch of, industry if they do not even pay the relevant overhead charges of the board. I hope my hon. Friend will review the matter in the light of what has passed, and will be able to accept this Amendment.

Mr. LAW: I beg to second the Amendment.

4.25 p.m.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: This Clause enables the Board to enter into arrangements with authorised undertakers for the supply of electricity to the undertakers by the board and to the board by the undertakers. In order to secure that the grid system shall not be imperilled, the Commissioners are empowered, in scrutinising the arrangements, to require that they shall be satisfied that the arrangments will not result in financial loss to the Board. To these words my hon. Friend seeks to add other words which go much further than securing that there shall not be a financial loss. He wishes to secure, in fact, that there shall be a full profit, because the board have, under his Amendment, to cover a proper proportion of their general expenses, the interest which they pay to their stockholders and sinking fund charges. My hon. Friend is an experienced business man. Can he tell me of any business in the country which is so restricted Power companies, taking
the industry with which we are concerned, enter into arrangements such as this, and it is for them to decide whether or not upon the whole they derive advantage through a contribution to their overhead costs. If the Board can secure such a contribution, there would seem to be no more reason why they should be debarred from entering into arrangements than that any business should be debarred.
This is an ordinary current business procedure and we have put upon the board a protecting restraint that they shall not be involved in a loss. I do not think it is arguable, if the board are to be trusted as a business enterprise, that you should go further than that and say they must not only not make a loss but must, in fact, make a profit. Those are the principles upon which every business in this and every other country is conducted. The purpose of these agreements is to secure that at the end of them the Board will be supplying the whole of the electricity, and that these undertakings will have ceased to generate. That is a plain advantage to the board. One might have thought the board could have been trusted to make up their own mind as to what agreement was sound and what was unsound. In order, however, to meet criticism and to assuage doubts, we have agreed that the board shall not be permitted to make a loss, and I hope the House will support me in the view that it would not be proper to go further than that. I appreciate my hon. Friend's fears, and the sincerity with which he states them, but I think, now that all these agreements have been open to review, both present and future agreements, he might be satisfied that that is about as far as the Government can be expected to go in the matter.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: My hon. Friend the Minister, who has been Financial Secretary to the Treasury in his turn, and a very good one, rather astonished me by the new doctrine he has just preached. I am not concerned so much with what may occur technically in certain businesses, but I was a little astonished when the Minister laid down the doctrine, by inserting the words "will not result in a financial loss," that you do not have to cover either the expenses or the interest or the sinking fund
charges which might be involved in these agreements. My hon. Friend, having put down the word "loss," should accept the Amendment. It is conceivable that it might be tying down the board too much, but I would far rather that they were tied down by over-sound financial conditions than by unsound conditions. The Amendment is a reasonable one, and the board should go into such matters as expenses, sinking fund charges and interest and consider them very carefully indeed. A considerable case has been made out for the Amendment, and I regret that apparently the Government are not going to accept it. I notice, however, that the Minister did not seem very certain in his opinion. He seemed to say, "We have gone a long way and we do not want to go any further, but if we are pressed we might go further." I would press him to take that little extra latitude and go a little further in this matter and accept the Amendment. It would enable every one of us to realise that the matter was being dealt with under the best possible financial conditions. I intend to support the Amendment, unless some stronger arguments are brought against it. It is one which should be included in the Bill.

4.33 p.m.

Sir PHILIP DAWSON: I intend to raise a point upon which the Minister has not touched. It seems possible that, as the Central Electricity Board has already fixed grid prices, and these include maintenance, depreciation and sinking fund, it cannot incur a loss even if it does not include these items in the contracts it may enter into with undertakers owning non-selected stations. It may, therefore, at the expense of other consumers, be in a position to charge lower prices in one area than in another one. I should like the Minister to take that point into consideration.

4.34 p.m.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I am disappointed by the Minister on this occasion. He drew an analogy between a company and the board. If a company for reasons of long-term policy, or indeed of any policy, enters into an arrangement which is not very profitable, that is their look-out and the company is the sufferer. But here is a case where the board may conceivably enter upon an arrangement which does not prejudice them but prejudices all the
other authorities with whom they have contracted. It is the duty of the board to obtain such revenue as will meet their expenditure. If they fail to get it from Mr. A, they have to charge it to Mr. B and others. We ask in the Amendment that Mr. A. shall pay his fair share of the capital charges, and the Minister says that it is a matter of ordinary business not to do this sort of thing. There is not the faintest analogy between the ordinary company and the board. The board have to look after the interests of the whole community, and it is their duty as far as possible to treat everyone equally.
The provision with regard to undue preference applies throughout the whole of the industry, but the analogy of the Minister has no existence at all. No greater emphasis has been laid, both in another place and here, upon any other matter than was laid upon the setting up of a grid tariff and then proposing that certain people should pay something different from the grid tariff, and, presumably, something less. It is clearly the intention that the sum to be paid shall be less than the grid tariff, and that in the long run that something shall be placed upon somebody else. That is not fair dealing, and it is because of that fact that the Amendment has been put upon the Paper.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. SPEAKER: The next Amendment which I call is that standing in the name of the hon. Member for South-West Hull (Mr. Law) on Clause 2.

CLAUSE 2.—(Amendment of s. 11 of Electricity (Supply) Act, 1926.)

4.36 p.m.

Sir J. NALL: I beg to move, in page 4, line 14, at the end, to insert:
Provided also that any such agreements which have already been entered into by the board shall not be extended beyond the original period for which these were made unless the. Electricity Commissioners are satisfied by the board in accordance with the provisions of this sub-section.
I move this Amendment, which also stands in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for South West Hull (Mr. Law), and my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams), and I hope that the Minister will be able to treat us a little more generously than he did on the last Amendment. It will, no doubt, be admitted that this is
a reasonable proposal, as a number of these agreements are already in operation. It might be inconvenient to say that these agreements should not have been entered into at all, and that they should lapse, but I think that it is only reasonable that they should be reviewed when the present terms lapse. On the Committee stage an Amendment was made to the effect that the commissioners should review agreements made prior to the passing of the Act, and I think that they should not be extended beyond their original purport unless the commissioners are satisfied that they conform to the provisions of the Act. I move the Amendment in good faith and hope that the Minister will accept it.

Mr. GURNEY BRAITHWAITE: I beg to second the Amendment.

4.38 p.m.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: This is the Clause which enables the Board to stand behind the authorised undertaker who wishes to supply a special customer asking for exceptional quantities of electricity at a special price and under special conditions. We have opened to the review of the Commissioners such agreements in the future, and in the Committee stage my hon. Friend proposed that we should open up the existing agreements to review. I pointed out to the Committee how difficult that would be. I accepted an Amendment, it is true, on the first Clause in that sense, but when we come to Clause 2 a different principle is at stake, because we are concerned not only with authorised undertakers, but with industries who might be disturbed if they found that arrangements which they had made were to be submitted to scrutiny. My hon. Friends accepted at once the force of that argument and withdrew their Amendment upon the understanding that I would further consider the position to see if anything could be done to meet it.
My reflection did not lead to any practical or operative result, but I saw upon the Order Paper yesterday this Amendment, which says in effect that, if you cannot open up the existing agreements for review, for the reasons that you have stated, at any rate, you should subject them to review at the end of their period and before renewal. I have not taken legal advice on the exact word-
ing of the Amendment, which seems to be reasonable and to implement the undertaking I gave to look into the matter again between the Committee and Report stages, and if it will satisfy my hon. Friends I shall be only too glad to accept the Amendment. I do not want to quibble with them about the words, but I can accept the principle upon the understanding that if the words should not quite meet the case, the sense of them will not in any way be changed, and the small alterations necessary can be made in another place. In those circumstances I should be ready to accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

4.41 p.m.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I beg to move, in page 4, line 44, after the words last inserted, to insert the words:
Provided also that in the event of a refusal by the board to any application by an authorised undertaker for a supply as aforesaid the authorised undertaker may make representations to the Electricity Commissioners who shall consider the matter and if, in their opinion, such refusal by the board imposes hardship the commissioners may require the board to afford the supply required on such terms and conditions as they may direct, subject to the provisions of this section.
This Amendment is based upon accepting the principle in the Clause. There are two views with regard to the desirability of the principle, but the principle having been accepted, there ought not to be any undue preference in this matter also. Therefore, if for any reason circumstances arise involving a case of exceptional circumstances where a rate at special terms is justifiable under Clause 2, the Board, in every such case, ought to be willing to give a supply, and if for any reason they refuse, there ought to be some appeal, and I suggest that the appropriate body of appeal are the commissioners. It is common knowledge that the board have acted in the past on the assumption that the power proposed in Clause 2 is the power which they already possess, I think that the fact that some doubts have arisen is the reason why Clause 2 has been inserted in the present Bill. They are already, in fact, granting these special terms.
Two or three days ago my attention was drawn to a case of an electricity
supply undertaking. In this particular case the company had been approached by the municipality in an area in which they were the authorised undertakers, to supply a load on special terms in connection with some very large swimming baths. This was a most desirable form of electric load, because it was practically a steady demand all round the clock, which is the most desirable kind of load from the electrical point of view. This scheme was turned down by the Central Electricity Board, but I also understand that the Central Electricity Board, on the application of the local authority at Epsom, have recently granted exceptional terms where the supply is from the London and Home Counties Joint Electricity Authority, an organisation which, I think, is looked upon with peculiar affection. They have granted a supply on these exceptional terms for a housing estate in the Epsom area, although the load at Epsom is electrically not nearly so desirable as the load in respect of which permission was refused.
There may be another side to the case. One hears one side of a case and does not necessarily hear the other side. Superficially, however, this is a case where there has been an undesirable form of discrimination, and the authorised undertaker has no appeal against this decision which the board has taken in these exceptional circumstances. As this seems a very undesirable form of unfair discrimination—which I imagine conflicts with the overriding Section in the Act of 1882, but at any rate that is what has happened—appropriate words ought to be put into the Act so that if any authorised undertaker, whether company or municipal, feels that the case which they have put up has been improperly turned down, they should have the right of appeal to the Electricity Commissioners.

Mr. CROOM-JOHNSON: I beg to second the Amendment.
I have been supporting Clauses 1 and 2 all the way through, and this is the first time that I have supported any Amendments moved by my hon. Friends who sit near me. The Amendment appears to raise something which ought to be looked into, and I shall be interested to hear the reply of the Solicitor-General on the point that has been raised.

4.47 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Donald Somervell): If in any particular case there were transgressions of the over-riding provision to which my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) referred, and preferential charges were in fact granted, that is dealt with under the old Act. I appreciate what my hon. Friends have said, but we cannot accept the Amendment, for this reason, that the Clause is a permissive one, enabling the board to stand behind an undertaking which is supplying electricity in special circumstances on special terms. That will be done by agreement, as in the past, and in our view the proper body, the only proper body, to decide as to the terms of these agreements must be the board. They are a body of business men who are entrusted by Parliament with the carrying out of these functions.
It may be said that some inroad has been made on that principle by the proviso as to financial loss, which has been inserted in deference to the views expressed in certain quarters. What the Amendment seeks to do is that in any case where the board thinks, whatever may be their reasons, that a certain agreement is not an agreement that should be entered into, there shall be an appeal of a very curious kind, to the Electricity Commissioners, whose functions are quite different from those of the board. To ask the Electricity Commissioners in such circumstances to say to the board: "You must enter into a contract on these terms," would be a most anomalous kind of appeal, and would be contrary to the principles of the Act in general and to this Clause in particular. The board is and must be the proper body to decide under what terms and in what circumstances they will enter into contracts under this Clause. I hope that that explantion will appeal to my hon. Friends.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: What redress has an authorised undertaker in a case where he wants to grant a supply, and the circumstances seem desirable, and he believes that such a supply has been granted in another area? How can he take the appropriate steps to insure against the unfair discrimination which the Act of 1882 prohibits?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: One can put border-line and hard cases if one
assumes that a body like the board is not going to play the game. If there are cases where a person feels that there has been undue preference, he has a statutory remedy, and we do not think that it would be right to go beyond that. There may be hard cases in this as in other circumstances, but in this matter we want to enforce a principle and we believe that the principle is sound. To accept the Amendment would impinge upon that principle and would be inconsistent with the general scheme of the Bill.

4.51 p.m.

Sir J. NALL: The learned Solicitor-General says that in these cases we must fall back on the "undue preference" provision of the old Act. At the same time, the Government try to maintain that there is no undue preference in the provisions of this Clause. The Solicitor-General talked about the business and functions of the board as though it were an ordinary business house entitled either to accept or to refuse business. It is nothing of the sort. Public utility companies are granted a charter, they accept their charter and proceed to set up their undertaking and to give supplies, and they are in duty bound to give a supply when consumers make a demand upon them. Therefore, if the board are empowered to make special agreements at rates which are variations from the general rates, it is only following the lines of general legislation that in turn the consumers who require a supply should be able to demand a supply on terms not less acceptable to them than to their neighbours in the same industry, although they may be in another area adjacent to the authorised undertakers.
I am surprised that the Solicitor-General should have adopted the attitude that he did. There are cases already of people who are in the same industry, particular persons of a particular class, who are getting an advantage over the rest of the persons in that class, although geographically they may not be in the same area. In order to get the safeguard against undue preference the Solicitor-General suggests that we should be satisfied with the long and involved procedure which would be necessary in order to get at the central board who are authorised undertakers all over the country and
who must not give undue preference in any part of the country. It would be much simpler and would facilitate matters in many instances if consumers who found themselves placed at considerable disadvantage compared with other members of the same industry were enabled by this Amendment to say to the board through the Electricity Commissioners: "Here is a special case; here is something which requires special provision similar to the special provision you have already given to somebody in the same industry, either in the same area or in another area." I am at a loss to understand why the suggested procedure cannot be followed, and I hope that before the Bill is disposed of in another place the Solicitor-General will think again about this matter. Once the Government have adopted the principle of this Clause, the principle of the Amendment would seem to be a perfectly reasonable, essential and consequential change.

4.54 p.m.

Sir GEOFFREY ELLIS: We could accept the Solicitor-General's assurances the more readily if we knew on what principles the board would act. He speaks as though the board would make contracts on the same basis as business people do. The trouble is that we do not know whether there is any general principle at all behind the board's actions. Are they going to haggle with each individual and do the best they can with each. Even when the bargains are made we get no opportunity of seeing what has been done. We shall remain absolutely in the dark and simply be referred back to the 1882 Act for our undue preference remedy. This is not going to help the board in its work with corporations and companies any more than it will help the electrict power production industry.

4.55 p.m.

Mr. G. BRAITHWAITE: I listened to the speech of the Solicitor-General and, as one who is not a lawyer, I confess that I am still in a little confusion in regard to the situation. He said that on the case put up there should be an appeal but that an appeal to the Electricity Commissioners was something to which the Government could not accede.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I am not conscious of saying—if I did I gave a wrong impression—that I conceded there should be an appeal. What I did say was that the board was the proper body to decide these matters and that if there was to be an appeal the appeal suggested in the Amendment was a very odd sort of appeal.

Mr. BRAITHWAITE: I thank the Solicitor-General for his explanation. I did get the impression that I have stated. We are in a difficulty in this matter. What is the Statutory situation when dissatisfaction arises in the kind of case quoted in the Amendment? The Solicitor-General said that he hoped we were not accusing the board of not playing the game. I think he used the words "playing the game" in connection with the board's activities. One does not desire to use rash phrases about the board, but it is common knowledge that there has been certain dissatisfaction. Two cases were mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams), which I think occurred at Bournemouth and Epsom. We are told that there is reference to this matter in the Electric Lighting Act of 1882. Section 20 of that Act appears to be the section which gives such statutory appeal as there may be, and I will read it, because it is very relevant to this Amendment.
The undertakers shall not, in making any agreements for the supply of electricity, show any undue preference to any local authority, company or person, but, save as aforesaid, they may make such charges for the supply of electricity, as may be agreed upon, not exceeding the limits of price imposed by or in pursuance of the licence, order or special Act authorising them to supply electricity.
The difficulty that I am in, as one who is not a lawyer, is to find how under that section there is facility for any appeal with a view to any remedy being given.

4.58 p.m.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: It seems to me that the position is highly unsatisfactory. I admit the complications and I do not pretend to think that I have grasped every detail in the Bill; probably very few people have done that. The principle underlying the Amendment is that, first of all, you have your special agreement, to which the board is a party, or it is very near to being a party to it. Then some outside person is aggrieved
by this special agreement. What happens then? This outside person appeals to the board, which has already made the agreement. That seems to me a very unsatisfactory position. The Solicitor-General says that to clear up the matter you must go to law. We want to legislate not for the purpose of making it necessary for people to go to law but to make things easier without resort to the law, by inserting an Amendment whereby there would be an appeal to some other body, in order that there would be arbitration when people are aggrieved. For that reason I should think that the Amendment would relieve the board from the very difficult position of having to decide these questions themselves, and would allow the aggrieved person to go to the Electricity Commissioners. If we do that we shall be placing the board in a much better position in the long run. It will not leave anyone with a feeling that the board are judging a case in which they are themselves interested.
If the Minister cannot accept the Amendment, which to me seems a perfectly reasonable proposal and does what many of us consider the right and proper thing, I hope he will consider the question between now and the later stages of the Bill so that should any difficulty arise there shall be an appeal to some other body which is not in the same position as the board. It is unfortunate that the Government are not in a position to accept the Amendment. The Minister has been extremely kind and courteous, and if he would accept it—although it may not be favourably received by the Front Opposition Bench—it would be in the interests of the country as a whole. It would not reduce the powers of the board to any extent nor would they be in any less unenviable position than they are under the Bill at present.

Amendment negatived.

CLAUSE 4.—(Supply of electricity by Centrol Electricity Board to railway companies.)

5.3 p.m.

Sir J. NALL: I beg to move: in page 5, to leave out lines 24 to 35, and to insert:
(1) Where electricity is required by a railway company for haulage or traction, and for the lighting of vehicles for the haulage or traction of which electricity so supplied is used, the authorised undertakers concerned in affording such supply shall act
jointly and with the Central Electricity Board for the purpose of giving the supply required under a single agreement with the railway company, and the prices and terms upon which such supply is to be given shall be such as maybe agreed, and in no case shall the prices be in excess of those chargeable under Section twelve of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1926, as amended by this Act.
Provided that if any such authorised undertaker is unable or unwilling to join in such an agreement, the power company (if any) concerned, or, failing the power company, the Central Electricity Board may supply in place of such undertaker.
When we debated this matter in Committee the right hon. Member for Spark-brook (Mr. Amery) raised certain objections and maintained that what was really wanted was something like the scheme which the Southern Railway has now, by which they get their supply indirectly from the grid, and if that is not available local undertakers come in. In putting the Amendment in this form I have tried to meet the objections of the right hon. Member and also those of the right hon. Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne). In Section 2 of the Act of 1926 there is a provision which contemplates the formation of associations of undertakers, who may accept contracts and operate together. I do not know why that Section could not have met the railway case, with some consequential Amendments to meet the special circumstances which now arise. At any rate, Section 2 gives an indication that in the 1926 Act the kind of circumstances about which the railway companies have been talking were contemplated, and that associations of under takers were contemplated as a reasonable way out in any case where a number of authorised undertakers are concerned.
Hon. Members associated with railway companies have been arguing—there has indeed been a little propaganda—that the whole purpose of this Bill is to deal with the railway supply. I do not believe it. I do not know a single railway scheme for electrification which is held up or in any way prejudiced by the lack of this Bill or any part of it. The fact of the matter is that railway companies have no such schemes awaiting the passage of this Measure. On the contrary, the one company which has made substantial and marked progress in electrification, the Southern Railway, is, as far as I know, working perfectly happily with its suppliers. Nothing has been said to the contrary, and there is no reason to believe
that they have the slightest difficulty in getting their supplies. Nor is there any reason to suppose that any other railway company would meet with any more difficulty. We are constantly referred to the report of the Weir Committee on the prospects for large scale main-line electrification. The Weir Report itself indicated that it was very unlikely anything of the sort would be adopted. They laid down certain points and said:
The full benefit of electrification can only be obtained by a complete substitution of steam by electricity. That would involve a new capital expenditure of over £260,000,000.
That is the estimate of the Weir Committee; and we have had some experience of the Weir Committee. They are usually wide of the mark. The Weir houses entirely failed to play any part in the housing problem of a few years ago. But the £260,000,000, the estimate of the Weir Committee, is only part of the picture. The Board would have to put up another £80,000,000 before it started earning any interest on the £60,000,000 which has already gone down the drain. The Weir Committee also say—
Assuming general electrification on a 20 years programme, and assuming that existing traffics are maintained, it is estimated that there will be a surplus of approximately 2 per cent. available after meeting interest charges on the new capital involved.
I ask the House to note that the only surplus available is 2 per cent. for replacement and all the rest of it. Their final comment is—
Such a return by itself would not appear from a business point of view to warrant the adoption of a scheme of such exceptional magnitude.
Why has railway electrification been brought into this Bill at all? So far as a case is made out for a simplification of the contracting system under which railway companies can get their supplies, and so far as a case has been made that a multiplicity of undertakers along the line of route is inconvenient, I suggest that the Amendment meets the case, and that it is entirely in line with the original intention of the 1926 Act. After all, what is involved in the so-called multiplicity of authorities? Ever since the railways opened they have been buying locomotive coal from every pit on the line and it has never been suggested that there should be a concentrated
colliery agency for the purpose of selling coal through one central selling agency. On the contrary, the railway policy has always been to disperse their contracts and have a diversity of sources of supply so as to have a safeguard against the breakdown of any individual in that chain of supply. If there was a breakdown of supplies at one colliery it did not matter so long as the volume of supply was always made up from elsewhere.
Never in the history of railways has it been suggested that the slightest inconvenience has been found in buying coal from practically every colliery on the line. Now, when the Government or the Central Electricity Board want to get through a Bill which will legalise a sort of Harris-Rickards agreement for disposing of other people's surpluses, this railway question is dragged in in aid, and we are asked to upset the basis of the 1926 Act. Having regard to what the railway companies have said on this matter, and admitting that it might in some circumstances be inconvenient to have a variety of undertakers involved in giving a supply, I submit that the proposal in the Amendment offers a most reasonable and fair basis to meet the difficulty. The suppliers concerned generally act together, and if any of them or all of them failed, the grid would then take over. The Amendment does not debar the grid from coming in as a partner in the scheme of things. I hope at any rate that the Government will further review this question.

5.12 p.m.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I bog to second the Amendment.
I am sorry that we are discussing this question in the absence of the right hon. Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne) and his rather numerous colleagues, who at the moment are represented only by the hon. and gallant Member for Rye (Sir C. Courthope). In Committee it was strongly represented that the difficulties in negotiations were so grave that Clause 4 was vitally necessary if more progress was to be made with railway electrification. It is true that the bulk of hon. Members who are associated with railway companies have not themselves had much experience of this particular difficulty, except the right hon. Member for Spark-brook (Mr. Amery), but those who took
the opposite point of view were impressed by their arguments. We want to preserve the principle that the Central Electricity Board should not go into the distribution business, while at the same time making a substantial concession to the alleged difficulties of the railway interests. The Amendment has been drafted in that sense. If there is electrification over a long stretch of line, then all the undertakers are to act together in unison with the Central Electricity Board, and if any authorised undertaker will not join, then the board can act on his behalf. That seems to provide every reasonable concession from the point of view expressed by railway companies, and at the same time avoids establishing the new and undesirable principle of the board itself entering into the distribution business.
I am certain that if the Amendment is accepted a substantial proportion of the opposition to this Bill will have gone. It is true that just before a Christmas Recess the amount of interest in this subject actually in the House is not very great. Nevertheless, there is a substantial body of opinion that views the Bill as a whole with some measure of suspicion. Possibly some of the suspicions are exaggerated; but the fact remains that suspicion is not diminished by the fact that the Government on this occasion is receiving the full and enthusiastic support of the Socialist party. The full support of the Socialist party for a Government Measure is generally an indication that the Measure should be regarded with some suspicion. A great statesman once said:
The liberties of Britain are only imperilled when both Front benches are in agreement.
I think there is a great deal in that. It is always a healthy thing when one Front Bench opposes the other. When the two Front Benches are at issue, the people have some chance of having their liberties preserved. But when the two Front Benches are in conspiracy, the liberties of the people may be imperilled. I should look with more enthusiasm on this Bill if it had not the support of the Socialist party. I ask the Minister to give most careful and sympathetic consideration to this Amendment. If he does not like the exact wording, or if he says he cannot accept it now, will he refrain-from closing the door to accepting some Amendment to
the same purpose at some other time or at some more suitable place. I make a most urgent appeal for this Amendment.

5.18 p.m.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I quite agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) that there are important principles involved; and I agree with him also that some of the fears about this Bill are exaggerated. But this Amendment must be judged on its merits, both literally and generally. It is destined to destroy the Clause which it purports to amend. At present the railway companies can obtain their supplies on Section 12 terms, that is to say, at the Board's tariff plus transmission costs; but they suffer from this disadvantage, that whereas they are potentially extremely large consumers—they might in fact be, if they electrified their lines, the largest consumers in the country—they suffer from the disability of not being able to profit by the size of their potential demand. Accordingly it is suggested, following the proposal in the Weir Report, that they shall be able to make one firm contract for electrifying their lines, or rather that each railway company shall be able to make one firm contract for the whole of its requirements at a price to be known in advance, thereby being freed from the inconvenience of negotiating with a number of separate undertakings offering at different prices, prices which are not always known in advance.
The purpose of the Clause, or the main purpose of the Clause, being to free the railway company from this inconvenience of having to negotiate with many different organisations, my hon. Friend comes along and puts down art Amendment which, I think, in the judgment of impartial persons, would aggravate that very difficulty. For what does his Amendment say? It says that where a railway company require a supply of electricity they shall bring together, if I understand it correctly, all the authorised undertakers along their line, and the Central Electricity Board, and shall proceed to negotiate with all of them. Well, as I suggest to the House, that is no improvement on the present position. What is to ensue from this conference? An undertaker who is going to give a supply at Crewe has no direct interest in the price
that is going to be charged by an undertaken in Manchester. There is no direct community of interest between these people who may be at different points along the line. Some of them may not even be called upon in any circumstances to supply the railway company. But this large meeting of interested parties, or supposedly interested parties, is to take place, and out of its deliberations is to come a single agreement, which in no circumstances is to be at a price greater than is chargeable under Section 12. Under Section 12 there is not one price; there may be a number of different prices. Therefore, I do not see that you are at any greater advantage than you were before.
But you have this additional disadvantage placed on the various undertakers that, this being apparently a joint agreement made by them all, they are all liable for the failure of one. If the supply breaks down at any particular point, all the other undertakers are to be liable. This agreement with the railway company is to be held up pending this negotiation, and apparently they cannot take any action whatever as long as only one of these authorised undertakers is willing to join in an agreement. Of course, all authorised undertakers would be willing to join in the agreement provided you paid them their terms; and I do suggest to the House, quite seriously, that this Amendment would create complete chaos. I understand the desire of my hon. Friends to preserve the legitimate interests of authorised undertakers, and I hope to show them, before this Clause passes through the Committee, that so far as I can practically meet their point, I am going to try to do so. But I do submit to the Committee that I have affered a perfectly serious objection to this Amendment, and I have shown that, so far from being an improvement on the present position, it would make the present difficulties even worse than they now are.

Amendment negatived.

5.25 p.m.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I beg to move, in page 6, line 26, at the end, to insert:
The consent shall not be deemed to be unreasonably withheld if the undertakers are willing and in a position to give the supply within a reasonable time and at the price specified in section twelve of, and the
Third Schedule to, the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1926, as amended by this Act.
Whether it is now much use seeking to argue this Clause I do not know. I do not want to waste the time of my hon. Friend or the time of the House, because it seems to me that, having regard to the indication he has given with regard to a later Amendment which he is likely to accept, it may not be worth while for me to move this. I am very anxious that we should not waste time. If the Minister will give any indication at all that he is likely to consider seriously this Amendment, I would like to press it, but if his attitude is going to be the attitude of complete refusal, I would rather not waste the time of the House.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I am very much obliged to my hon. Friend for the spirit in which he took my remarks. I should be prepared to accept the Amendment relating to line 26 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Hulme (Sir J. Nail) if the Committee would be prepared to pass that Amendment.

Mr. WILLIAMS: In the circumstances' I do not propose to press the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir J. NALL: I beg to move, in page 6, line 26, at the end, to insert:
(4) Notwithstanding anything in this section no electricity supplied thereunder to a railway company by the Central Electricity Board shall, within the area of supply of any authorised undertakers, be used without the consent of those undertakers otherwise than for purposes of the company's railway undertaking.
The object of this Amendment is that, having settled the general principle that electricity may be supplied, by special agreement, by the board to a railway company, at least they shall not upset the whole of the existing supplies by using that electricity for other purposes, or future supplies for other purposes. It would be only reasonable that these supplies by the local undertakers should continue. As a matter of fact, since I put this Amendment on the paper, I have been doubtful about the last words—"railway undertaking," because that is a pretty wide description. Up and down the country large supplies are taken by the railway companies from the existing undertakings, municipal and other, and there is no trouble about these things.
But if they come along with area electrification and then incidentally say, "Oh, well, we have a wagon short in this place and we will cease to take a supply from the local company or the local municipality," they will completely upset the load which the local undertakers have been handling. It will be altogether unreasonable that a supply which is specially provided under Clause 4 should be diverted or used for purposes not really contemplated when the board was set up. Therefore, I hope my hon. Friend may settle this; though, perhaps, as I say, he may prefer some other words than "railway undertaking."

Mr. GURNEY BRAITHWAITE: I beg formally to second the Amendment.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: During the Committee stage the main purpose of the Amendments seemed to be to secure that a direct supply of electricity given to a railway company for traction purposes should not be used for any purposes not legitimately connected with what I would now call "the railway undertaking." I said that I did not think I could concede the demands of my hon. Friends to the fullest extent, but that I would be willing to meet them in so far as it was practicable to do so. My hon. Friend the Member for Hulme (Sir J. Nail) has now put down an Amendment with which I understand he is not himself completely satisfied, because of the vagueness of the term "railway undertaking." He is in the difficulty which we all experience in finding a precise form of language which will not prevent the legitimate use of these supplies in a reasonable way. I apprehend that the reason why my hon. Friend has used these words with which he is not completely satisfied is because they are to be found in the London Electricity Supply Corporation, Special Order, 1926, which says:
Provided that nothing in this Section shall be deemed to authorise the undertakers to supply electricity to be used in or upon any premises belonging to the Southern Railway Company which are not used for the purposes of their railway undertaking.
If I accept this Amendment, it will give the authorised undertakers a protection which they do not at present possess. It will be adding to the terms of Section 47. But I may reassure my hon. Friend if I tell him that he has a double safeguard.
I tried to convince him during the Committee stage that he had my discretion behind him. No supply given for traction purposes can be used for other purposes except with the consent of the Minister. That was a provision inserted in the Act of 1926, and I believe it is also in the 1919 Act, and it is a protection which the House hitherto has thought to be sufficient. My hon. Friend's Amendment goes even further and says that the consent of the authorised undertakers must be obtained. It goes very much further than any previous Act of Parliament, but as I am anxious to carry out the undertaking which I have given, I shall not stand in the way of its acceptance if the House desires to carry it.

Mr. ATTLEE: I think this is rather dangerous. The Minister is now accepting a Sub-section the phraseology of which is not understood by the Mover of the Amendment.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: No. I think I pointed out with complete justice that these words had been taken from a Special Order of 1926. The Mover himself said that he would like the Amendment to be in different language, but he thought the present Amendment represented the most that he could obtain. I understood that to be the gist of his remarks. He took these words "railway undertaking" from the Order to which I have referred, but he would have preferred stronger words if he could have devised them. I think that was the subject of his discontent.

Mr. ATTLEE: That may be so, but there is another side to the question. We want to know whether these words are not too strong from the point of view of other interests concerned. If the Minister can assure me on this point it will be all right but we have not got a definition of "railway undertaking" in this connection.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I myself sought the satisfaction which I am now asked to give to the hon. Gentleman. The proposal made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hulme seems to be reasonable in essence. It is that if the Board supply a railway company direct, that direct traction supply shall not be applied to hotels and other undertakings which have no immediate connection with the railway
undertaking. The question is: How is that to be expressed in the proper language? My hon. Friend the Member for Hulme takes the wording of a Special Order in which the term "railway undertaking" is used. I do not think that those words have ever been defined as a result of litigation but they are in existence in that Special Order and I think their purport is clear. On those grounds I am willing to accept them. I admit that they have never been closely defined as a result of a case in the law courts and I do not think that such a point would ever arise, for this reason, that there is the other safeguard, namely, the necessity to have the Minister's consent in any event before a supply can be used for purposes other than traction purposes.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: I understand then that the words "railway undertaking" would not cover railway hotels and that the intention of the Minister in accepting the Amendmeent is to tie it down to definite means of transport, to the actual means of propulsion and so forth in the running of the railway service.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I think that my hon. Friend had better not pursue the matter if he does not wish to destroy the Amendment. I think the ordinary common sense meaning of "railway undertaking" is plain. If my hon. Friend is going to make a very subtle analysis of the term and try to make it mean something else then I shall be very chary about accepting the Amendment. But I think the ordinary reasonable man will understand what it means. It has been in an Electricity Order already. It means the purposes of the railway undertaking—signalling, or lighting or anything that can be connected with the railway undertaking. I am trying to exclude things which are outside the railway undertaking.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: I have no wish to tie the Minister down too strictly, but I thought a difficulty had arisen and that it might be possible to simplify it. I fully accept the position which the Minister takes up and I realise that he is accepting the Amendment in the widest spirit.

Amendment agreed to.

The following Amendment stood upon the Order Paper: In page 6, line 43, at the end, to insert:
(5) Paragraph (a) of sub-section (4) of section seven of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1926, shall have effect as if the words 'or sale' were inserted after the word 'generation.'"—[Mr. H. Williams.]

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain Bourne): I should like to hear an explanation of this Amendment from the hon. Member before I decide whether it should be called or not.

5.38 p.m.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: This purports to be an Amendment to Section 7 of the Act of 1926 and might at first sight appear to be outside the scope of the Bill but I think I can show that it is not. If reference is made to the Section in question, it will be seen that in the relationship between the board and the selected stations there are certain expenses which the board cannot charge to the selected stations because they are expenses which have nothing to do with the authorised undertakers, for the purposes of this levy. In this Bill we are authorising the board to enter into the work of negotiating contracts with railway companies and obviously they will have to create a staff for that purpose. It will be necessary for them to have people who can spend all or at least part of their time in those negotiations. It seems clear that the expenses of that staff ought not to be included in the levy upon the selected station owners against whom there is to be this competition. These proposals which make it possible for the Central Electricity Board to give direct supplies must alter the general financial arrangements between the board and the undertakers. New expenditure incurred by the board as a result of having become a competitor with authorised undertakers ought not to be included in the expenses which the board can subsequently charge against those with whom they are in competition. The Amendment seeks to deal with that point.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I am obliged to the hon. Member for his explanation. It confirms the opinion which I had formed that, whether or not this Amendment is outside the scope of the Bill, it is certainly outside the scope of this Clause.

5.42 p.m.

Sir J. NALL: I beg to move, in page 6, line 43, at the end, to insert:
(5) Where by reason of any supply of electricity given by the Central Electricity
Board to a railway company under this Section any capital expenditure incurred by any authorised undertakers for the purpose of supplying electricity to the railway company is rendered wholly or partly unremunerative the Central Electricity Board shall pay to the authorised undertakers a turn equal to the then value of the works represented by such capital expenditure or a fair proportion of such value as may be reasonable in the circumstances. Any dispute between the Central Electricity Board and any authorised undertakers under this Section shall be settled by arbitration.
This Amendment differs in form from a similar Amendment which we discussed in Committee. I would remind the Minister that after a similar proposal had been negatived in Committee hon. Gentlemen on the Front Opposition Bench proceeded to bring up the question of compensation for workers, and the Committee very properly inserted Amendments in the Bill with the object of compensating workmen who were displaced as a result of the operations of this Clause. It was pointed out in objection to my Amendment on that occasion that the words which I then proposed asked for compensation for loss of profits. The present Amendment is in a revised form, and its purport is that where plant has been installed for the purposes of a supply and the supply has to be discontinued as a result of the operation of this Measure, compensation should be made available to the parties concerned in respect of the plant thus rendered redundant. It is no answer to say, as was said in Committee, "If the undertakers make an agreement for a specified term and the specified term lapses, it is up to them to deal with the plant which is no longer required." This Bill changes the whole circumstances in which such contracts exist. If this Measure had been in existence when some of the present contracts were made it is reasonable to suppose that those contracts never would have been made on the existing terms.
There are existing contracts which were entered into in the almost certain hope and with the obvious possibility that they would be renewed, possibly under revised conditions, but in such a way that there would be continuity of supply and an implied continuity of the original contract. All that is changed as the result of the Bill. Some of these contracts may not be renewed, and in that event the cervices with which they are concerned will come to a premature end, and the under-
taker, who has put up perhaps several miles of overhead lines and installed substations and so on, will be left with all that equipment on his hands. The House having accepted the principle of compensation for the individual whose capital, in the form of his ability to work, has been taken from him, it is reasonable to ask that plant made redundant by the operation of this Measure should rank for reasonable reimbursement to the people who put it down.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I beg to second the Amendment.

5.46 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: My hon. Friend the Member for Hulme (Sir J Nall) moved this Amendment in very clear terms. He made it, I think, quite clear—what it is important to remember—that there is no question under this Clause of any contract being broken. No railway company has any right, by reason of this Clause, to break any contract which it has entered into, and it would be at least a novel principle to give compensation because one contracting party did not renew a contract with another contracting party. After all, the situation may arise at present. There is nothing to prevent a railway company which has made a contract with a joint authority or a power company deciding that it could more usefully use the power if it were obtained at a different point and from some other authority, and changing its source of supply.

Sir J. NALL: I do not want to mislead my hon. and learned Friend or the House, but if a particular hotel, or dock, or harbour is in the area of a particular undertaker, it cannot get a supply from another undertaker in another area.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: My hon. Friend really has in mind what I may call the incidental purposes, and I will deal with that question in a moment, because there is a further safeguard on another matter on that account; but if you take haulage, there is nothing to prevent, under the present law, a railway company making an agreement at one time with one power company, and when that agreement comes to an end, making an agreement with another company to take the power at another point. When people enter into contracts they
can negotiate and agree to such terms as they think fit, and if a contract involves considerable capital expenditure, it is open to those negotiating it to see that it is for a term which would reasonably cover that capital expenditure; but it would be a very novel principle, and a principle which could not really be justified, if you introduced into this Clause a provision that there should be compensation, in effect, for the fact that a contract was not renewed. There are individual cases of hardship whenever changes are produced, either by Parliament or by special circumstances in industry. I am sure my hon. Friend would have many examples of that sort in his mind, but here, as we see it, there is no novelty in such a position as may arise, and nothing which could justify any compensation for the fact that a contract is not renewed.
I would like to point out this further, that where, in so far as my hon. Friend has in mind what are called the incidental purposes, purposes other than haulage and traction, a railway company is proposing to get a supply from the board for haulage, no undertaker could be prejudiced by action under that part of the Clause except with the consent of the Minister. Therefore, in the case which I think my hon. Friend has in mind, where some authority or power company has been supplying a hotel or a dock and has been put to considerable capital expenditure, which has not had time to get a proper return, and that will all be thrown out of action if the board supplies, my hon. Friend the Minister will have to be asked for his consent within the terms of the proviso, surely this House can trust the Minister that consent should not unreasonably be given for a supply for incidental purposes—unreasonable for this reason, that the power company which has given the supply has incurred large capital expenditure for that particular purpose and has not been provident enough to get a sufficiently long-term contract to give it a reasonable return. For these reasons, we are unable to accept this Amendment.

5.52 p.m.

Mr. G. BRAITHWAITE: I must confess that I have listened with great disappointment to the speech of my hon. and
learned Friend the Solicitor-General, if only for this reason, that when we were dealing with this Clause in Committee a week ago, an Amendment was moved from an Opposition bench—and I was very glad to see that it was accepted by the Government—granting compensation for the benefit of railway servants who might find themselves dismissed as a result of this Bill coming into operation. Surely it is not very much to ask that a Government so constituted as this one is should not only consent to compensation to the worker, with which we cordially agree, but that they should also allow some compensation to the unfortunate capitalist. I am a little bit puzzled as to exactly where my hon. and learned Friend draws his distinction in this matter. We inserted this new Sub-section (5) during the Committee stage, and one is entitled to ask why that Sub-section was accepted and inserted if the principle is immediately to be rejected when we ask that similar compensation should be granted to the capitalist.
If we are told that it is merely a question of a contract of service not being renewed, that is the situation of these railway servants under the Sub-section which we inserted. They too would find themselves in the position of their contract not being renewed, and surely they too would receive compensation under that Clause. I am sorry the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Dobbie) is not in his place, because he spoke with great knowledge of this matter in Committee and expressed satisfaction at the insertion in yet another Act of Parliament of a compensation Clause of this kind. The two situations are exactly the same. It is a question of a contract not being renewed, and I do not think it is unreasonable to ask a Government of the political complexion of this one to consider the Amendment favourably.

5.55 p.m.

Mr. CHORLTON: Might I have an explanation of this point? Suppose a contract was entered into in which an undertaker had put in a very large generating plant for providing current for traction purposes. At the time it was entered into there was nothing in front of him like this Bill, and therefore, if the contract was not a long one, the undertaker could not possibly have foreseen the damage that would result to
him from the operation of this Measure. Therefore, without trying to understand the lack of continuation in the argument of the Solicitor-General, when he said that they agreed with compensation to the individual but not to the undertaker himself for plant, and that they agreed with compensation for subsidiary services such as docks, hotels, and so forth, I do not follow, from an engineering point of view, and imagining myself as one who had put in a plant for an undertaker and who had no prospect then of seeing anything which might upset its continuation, how it can be said that the undertaker would not suffer very severe loss, and should not be compensated.

5.56 p.m.

Mr. CROOM-JOHNSON: I rise because of the observations which were made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. G. Braithwaite). It would be extremely dangerous if we allowed it to go forth that there was any considerable body of opinion in this House which was in favour of granting compensation to a body which had failed to get a renewal of a contract. I think there is the widest difference, the most positive difference, between such a case and the case which I was very glad to see, by analogy with what appeared in the Railway Act of 1921, was inserted in Committee and now appears in Subsection (5) of Clause 4 of this Bill. It seems to me that if you suggest that because some body of persons who are either capitalists, whatever that means precisely, or organising a big public supply, are going to be deprived of a contract, and a certain amount of plant is thereby rendered unfit, you should grant compensation, it is indeed to open the door to a principle to which I could not subscribe for a moment.

Amendment negatived.

5.58 p.m.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
I have tried, to the best of my ability, to meet certain powerful objections raised by my hon. Friends and in one case by His Majesty's Opposition, and the Bill has been modified in its passage through the House. On the first Clause there is now to be a review of past agreements, which was not originally provided for in the Bill. Under the second
Clause, the agreements are to be reviewed when they come to the end of their period, and before they are renewed; the servants of railway companies who may be displaced from their generating stations as a result of direct supply being taken from the board are to be compensated; and authorised undertakers are to obtain a Protection against supplies which were obtained for the purposes of traction and for the purposes of the railway undertaking generaly being used in competition with what they might legitimately claim to have a monopoly to supply. I have tried to meet the wishes of all sections of the House so far as I have been able.
The House has reciprocated by giving an easy, though a closely scrutinised, passage to this Bill. I could well have understood, considering the number of names that were down on the Order Paper of those who were discontented with the Bill, if instead of our now being at the beginning of the Third Reading we had still been discussing the first Clause; but because my hon. Friends have not been obstructive but have been constructive, and have concentrated on what they thought was practical, it has been possible to get through a difficult and contentious Measure without, I hope, ill will. I am particularly grateful for the spirit in which all my hon. Friends have spoken, and particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Hulme (Sir J. Nail), who is the leader in this matter of the friendly opposition. We have now reached the Third Reading, and I hope that some, at any rate, of the misgivings have been allayed, and that, while my hon. Friends may not be completely satisfied, they are not so full of disapproval as they were when our discussions began.

6.2 p.m.

Mr. PARKINSON: I think that all Members will join with me in congratulating the Minister on the way in which he has conducted this Bill through the House. It is a Bill that has presented some difficulties, but the hon. Gentleman has overcome them and has been successful in bringing it before the House for the Third Reading. The Measure is a step in the right direction. Electricity is a national service, and the Bill will tend towards helping the whole community rather than a section. It is a general bringing together of all the production
plants and it will bring about the avoidance of many separate interests to deal with this matter. We wish particularly to thank the Minister for conceding the Amendment which we had down. While hon. Members on the other side have not been able to get their compensation Clause, the question was very fully discussed in another place and dealt with there from every point of view. The Bill will lead to a greater supply of electricity from the grid, and I take it that that is the principal point with which we have to deal. Not only will it make for a greater production and distribution of electricity, but it will remove many difficulties which were evident in the Act of 1926. It will remove the difficulty against producing the cheapest and most effective supply.
A paragraph that appeared in the Press yesterday, pointed out that the Central Electricity Board have been able in a new housing area in South Devon to supply electricity at 1d. per unit as against 1s. which was to be charged by the private companies there. Some compromise was arrived at whereby they got power to work distributing stations on their own, and instead of the current costing 1s. the people have got off with 1d. We want that kind of thing to operate everywhere. We do not want people to have to produce electricity at a loss, but at the same time we want a reasonable amount charged so that people will not be bled. The Bill will be one of the ways to cheapen the price, to level the whole system of distribution, and to bring about greater uniformity throughout the country than there has been before. It will and ought to be accepted by the community as an evidence of a desire to clear away many of the difficulties and to yield to the consumer a general and plentiful supply of current at a uniform price as far as possible.
The Debates on the Bill have been carried out in perfectly good temper. We have had no exhibition of maliciousness or any desire to wreck the Bill. Everybody has seemed to realise the importance of the Measure, and, while there have been many Amendments, they have been debated with good sense and feeling, and I am sure that whatever was said in moving the Amendments was accepted in the spirit in which it was
meant. The proceedings on the Bill have been brought to a close in a spirit of understanding, if not of real peace, which will help forward the greater production and the better distribution of electricity throughout the country.

6.7 p.m.

Mr. ALED ROBERTS: I would like to join in the congratulations to the Minister on the Very good-tempered way in which he has carried through the discussions on a highly technical Measure. He has, as he admitted himself, done his best to meet all the legitimate Amendments which have been put forward. He expressed himself in regard to one which I attempted to move, and I hope that, although he was not able to accept it, his good wishes will not stop there, but that he will do what he can with his powers outside. I wish to join with the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Parkinson) in the great optimism which he expressed as to the benefits of this Measure. I will support it because I think, after considering it very carefully, that it is more likely to do good than otherwise. At any rate, it will bring cheap electricity immediately within the reach of some people who could not get it otherwise. I am not sure that I take the view that it is so radical in its changes that it will enable electricity to be cheaper and more abundant to the whole community. There are, however, cases in certain areas which will be affected by the pooling system. Some places have to pay very high charges owing to transmission costs, and they will be able to get the benefit of pooling with other places in the same area which are nearer to a generating station. To that extent, it will cheapen electricity to some consumers in local areas.
It remains to be seen how Clause 3 will be applied. I should like to see it applied over the whole electricity area, but I realise, as anybody who has been through the discussions on this Bill must, that there are very powerful interests with which to contend if any pooling on a large scale is to take place. Those who have been representing those interests have not hesitated to make their views heard in the House. That is one of the things with which the Minister and the commissioners will have to contend, and if we are really to get what the hon. Member for Wigan appears to think we shall as a result of this Bill, one of the first
things to be done is to have some application by the commissioners under this Bill and under the Act whch it amends to bring some of the power companies' lines within their own control. I can see that the railway companies are likely to do very well out of this Bill. I think they are entitled to so. They carry on a public srevice, and they ought to get their current as cheaply as possible. That is one of the features in the Bill about which I have no qualms.
I see, however, a danger in the powers in the Bill to give special terms to special undertakers and consumers. There is also the question of undue preference. The Central Electricity Board, in applying the powers under this Bill, will in many cases supply current without any profit. All they have to do is to show that they are not making a loss. If you are to supply a large amount of current on that basis without making a loss, and have to keep up a certain standard revenue as in the case of railway companies, it may be some time before the general consumer gets a considerable reduction. That is one of the matters which I presume the Minister and the commissioners will watch carefully in the operation of the Bill. I support the Measure, and I hope optimistically that it will have better effects than I was at first inclined to believe.

6.11 p.m.

Sir J. NALL: I should be ungrateful if I did not respond as warmly as I could to the kind expressions of the Minister. It has been no part or wish of mine to obstruct the proceedings, and I hope I have been long enough in the House to realise that when a Minister brings in a Bill he does so for the purpose of seeing it passed in to law, and he is not disposed to take it back or tear it up. Therefore, it is only natural that my hon. Friend, having brought in the Bill, should stick to it and see it through. I should like to express my personal appreciation of the manner in which he has tolerated the various proposals which I have made and for his acceptance in one or two instances of small Amendments which make the Bill perhaps less objectionable than it was. I am sure my hon. Friend will appreciate it when I say that the general objection to the Bill still remains and that it has not been affected in any way
by the manner in which he has dealt with our objections.
That our general objection remains can be illustrated by reference to the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Parkinson), who spoke so strongly in support of the Bill. Of course the Front Opposition Bench support it. It is part of their programme. But what is intolerable is that the Central Board itself should be pressing on the socialisation of the electricity industry instead of attending to its proper job of concentrating on and controlling the generation of electricity. I have seen a book issued by the Fabian Research Bureau by "H.G." It does not disclose the author's name, but it is generally known who he is. He is an officer actively engaged in advising the Central Board on many aspects of their work. He writes this book, and in the foreword there is a note which states:
The conclusions reached, and the proposals forward are substantially similar to those of the Labour Party Policy Report No. 3.
So is this Bill. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Mr. A. Roberts) said, the House ought to be concerned about the expectations aroused by the Act of 1926, and whether electricity as a result of that Act will be cheaper all over the country. This Bill is putting back the day when it can be. It is deliberately enabling certain consumers, certain particular persons, to get an advantage in a way in which they could not have got it under the 1926 Act. It is, therefore, putting off the day when all the persons concerned can secure an advantage. It is true that under the Act of 1926 electricity cannot cost more than it would have done without the Act. The intention of the Act was that electricity should cost less.
As a result of the board's activities in the matter of concentration and generation and all the rest of it there should be an advantage to everybody who is consuming electricity, but this Bill postpones indefinitely—and for all time if the present policy of the board is pursued—the realisation of the hopes of 1926, and for that reason I think the passing of this Bill is very bad Government policy. After all, the board is not a commercial body in the ordinary way; the conduct of its finances and its inability to reduce charges make one realise that it is not being actuated by ordinary commercial
considerations. It is supposed to be a technical body to control the generation of electricity, with the ultimate result of securing economies in the interests of the consumers of electricity. Under this Bill the fruition of the 1926 Act is indefinitely postponed. I hope the Minister will have regard to the objections which have been raised so long as remains in his present office, which we hope will be for some time, and until he gets a better one, and that he will see, so far as it is within his power, that this Bill is reasonably worked, and not applied in the quite irregular and quite harmful manner to which the activities of the board have recently been directed.
In these days of the creation of authorities which are not directly responsible to this House we must take note of these things, and realise that if we are not careful we shall get into a position where all the public utilities are in the hands of people not even appointed by Ministers but appointed by curious "colleges" of the Ancient Order of Buffaloes, the Musicians' Union, the Royal Academy, the College of Surgeons and so on—people who know nothing about the practical working of the undertakings for which they are to appoint the directors. We have had the London Transport Board and this board appointed. It is far better to let the stockholders appoint the directors—to go back to the ordinary system of a board appointed by the people who provide the capital. Failing that, there must be some more direct control over these public boards. In this Bill my hon. Friend has, fortunately, retained in some respects control over what can be done, and I do urge him and his Department that that control should be made a real thing, and that this board, responsible to nobody and not to be made chargeable for their faults and fallacies, should not be allowed to get the finances into a bigger muddle than some of us believe them to be at the present time.

6.19 p.m.

Sir P. DAWSON: I am afraid I do not agree with the argument used by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Hulme (Sir J. Nall), but I would join in congratulating the Minister on the way he has handled a very complex question and on conceding several important points which we think are essential for
the provision of cheap electricity throughout the land—a provision which we all wish to see. The hon. and gallant Member for Hulme constantly opposed the 1926 Act and predicted that it would be a failure, and in these Debates he has attempted to justify his prognostications, but I suggest that his condemnation of the board at the present time is utterly futile. They have only just had a chance to make a start. Two of the sections started less than two years ago, the other five started at the beginning of this year, and the remaining two will not start till the beginning of next year. Surely it is rather early to suggest that the results anticipated by those who promoted and supported the Act of 1926 have not been achieved. It is a very remarkable fact that the board's policy as regards the joining up of various stations and transmissions is the policy which is being followed to-day, as it has been for many years past, by all the other industrial countries. We find it done in America, in France, in Switzerland and in Italy. It is a policy which has gained justification, and I believe it is one which in this country will justify the Act of 1926 and the Amendments introduced into that Act by the present Bill.
Perhaps the House will forgive me if I quote a few figures to show what has been achieved during the last two or three years. It may be true that we cannot say that it is all directly traceable to the Act of 1926, but I contend that that has had something to do with the remarkably rapid progress which has been made. If we take the three years from 1931–33 we find the plant installed has increased by 8 per cent., the number of consumers connected by 33 per cent., and the amount of current taken by the consumers by 20 per cent. The most remarkable fact there is the comparatively slight increase in the plant installed and the very large increase in consumption. That shows two things: first, that electricity has been made more generally available; and, secondly, that people are becoming more electrically-minded. As to the latter point, I consider that the propaganda of the Central Electricity Board all over the country has done a considerable amount of good in increasing the number of electrically-minded people.
It is very remarkable how electricity is being extended to rural areas which up to a few years ago had no electricity. There are several companies with which I am connected working in rural areas where there has been an increase in the consumption of electricity of something like 40 per cent., and there are few rural areas in which electricity is available where the increase has not been between 20 and 30 per cent. I feel that those figures justify us in hoping that the future will see a still greater improvement. My hon. Friend suggested that the contracts which the Central Board wishes to make with undertakers who have not got selected stations is a sign of weakness, and that it proves that they themselves are not satisfied with the grid and are seeking further means to carry out their task. I suggest that it shows good business acumen, because where there are areas in which the demand is not sufficiently large to justify the erection of a grid they can, by the means they have selected, supply electricity which otherwise would not become available. In any case I think this can only be regarded as a first step, because in that way they will be able to build up the requirements of the people until at no distant date the grid is extended there and carries out the functions for which it was originally promoted.
The only fear of many of us on this side of the House was that the agreements might be made in such a manner that nobody had any information about them and as might entail injustice to the consumers, because a cheap supply to one person may mean an expensive supply to another, whereas we are anxious to see electricity distributed as cheaply as possible all over the country. Another point about which we were rather afraid was that the powers which are being sought might result in the Central Board becoming the competitors of the authorised undertakers. If anything of that kind were possible it would frustrate the whole intention of the Act of 1926. The Central Board is a body which purchases all the current generated from selected stations and then distributes it and sells it to authorised undertakers. If the board were to go direct to some of the best potential customers of existing undertakers and try to supply them direct that would greatly
damage the chances of such undertakers. It is obvious that one must take the fat and the lean together. We cannot expect one authority to supply an area where there are no good customers and leave to another authority an area where the best customers are to be found. Many of the large undertakers, whether private companies or municipal undertakings—particularly the power companies—have spent vast sums, amounting to many millions, and have had to wait sometimes five or 10 years for any return on that expenditure, and if there were any chance of their being robbed of some of those customers who helped them to accelerate the process of getting a return on their money it would largely militate against their success and not encourage people to invest money to enable them to carry on their work.
As the Bill stands now I think that it practically, if not entirely, removes two dangers. One is the danger of unfair contract, which is dealt with by the supervision of the Electricity Commissioners, although I wish my hon. Friend had accepted the Amendment I proposed to make it quite clear that all the interested parties should be able to appear before the Electricity Commissioners and not only those supplying and those taking current. The second danger which has been removed is this: It is clear by the Bill as it stands that the Central Electricity Board will not be allowed to become direct competitors with electrical undertakers. Those two dangers having been removed I certainly propose to support the Bill.
I have also a word to say on an aspect of the matter in which I take considerable interest. If this Bill is going to be of any use to railways I am glad that it is to be passed, but I do not think for one moment that any railway, with the exception of the Southern Railway, intends to do anything at all under it. Any excuse is good enough for them to do nothing. They demonstrate a special locomotive hauling two coaches, and because they can get a speed similar to that attained in America and in Germany by a Diesel-engine train they will say, they need not change their present methods. They do many "stunts" of that kind and they get a very fine press, but the unfortunate traveller who lives on the London and North-Eastern Railway and has to travel up to Liverpool
Street every day and home again has the same service now as he had 25 years ago; and as far as we can gather from the statement made on another occasion by my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton (Sir C. Barrie) his railway has no idea of carrying out any large electrification scheme.
I am afraid this Bill will be no inducement to those railway companies to do any more in that direction; but the Southern Railway Company ought to be congratulated on their enterprise and on the results which have attended that enterprise. Not only have they electrified the suburban lines and increased their services and receipts, but they have also electrified main lines. Some 20 years ago I forecast the results of electrification of the railway to Brighton, and those forecasts have been more than realised by the results achieved. They are to continue the electrification to Hastings and they will achieve the same results there. New housing estates have been developed in that part of the country, and if other railway companies followed their example it would not only give employment to tens of thousands of people, but also largely benefit the country through which the lines pass.
In that connection I think the claims made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery) when he spoke on Wednesday last were quite justified. To deal with half-a-dozen different bodies and to try to secure from them a supply of electricity is a very difficult proposition. I have had experience of that kind of thing, and I therefore welcome the Bill, as long as it is perfectly clear that the railways will have to stand a fair proportion of the charge—cost, maintenance, depreciation, sinking fund and everything else—in connection with the installation that the Central Electricity Board will have to put up in order to supply them with electricity. As the Bill stands, I support its Third Reading, expressing the hope at the same time that the Minister may see his way to grant one or two slight modifications when it goes to another House.

6.31 p.m.

Mr. J. JONES: I have witnessed some magnificent illustrations of Mr. Facing-Both-Ways from hon. Members who, in
the first place, opposed the principle of the Bill and are now beginning to bless it. They believed in the nationalisation of the production of electricity but in the individualisation of its distribution. "Produce electricity as cheaply as you can for us," they say, "but when you come to distribute it, where the profits are made, keep you hands off." They are Socialists when it suits them and capitalists all the time. The hon. and gallant Member for Hulme (Sir J. Nail) put the cat among the pigeons. He quoted a certain pamphlet which we accept. We have always believed in the principle that the things which are essential for the life of the people ought not to be private property of any section of the people, and that things which are necessary for the life of all should be the property of all.
The Bill goes a little bit of the way towards that end. Like the Irishman's pup, it follows everybody some part of the way, and therefore it pleases hon. Members opposite while it sometimes pleases us. There is to be a national supply of electricity, and if we are good boys in various districts we may get electricity cheaply. I live in a district, and I am a member of the local authority, many miles away from the coalfields, yet we are able to supply electricity to the manufacturers and people of West Ham more cheaply than they would be able to get it on top of the coalfields. Why is that? Because the supply is publicly controlled and publicly owned. No individual director is getting a thousand pounds a year for doing nothing and doing it very well. No people who have put a certain amount of money into the concern are drawing out more than they have put in—not in dividends exactly but in emoluments, such as putting their sons in as governors, foremen, engineers and in other positions connected with the firm. Although they are making no dividends they are getting their money back in other ways. Some of us know these things because we have sat upon committees where the administration takes place, and we have watched it. It is a fine game played slow. It is very nearly time that the people said "tiggy."
We stand for the Bill in so far as it applies to the production of electricity. Would it not be a magnificent thing if
the supply of electricity could be national, not only in production but in distribution. Why should all these various interests cut it up in little bits after it has been produced in bulk and say, "Where does my company come in?" The hon. Member who spoke last let the cat out of the bag. He wanted to know where the power companies come in. I am quite prepared to give them all they are worth, and that is not much. Taking them company by company against the public authorities who are doing the same work, their charges are 50 per cent. more, on the average, than those of the public authorities, and that is a great condemnation. The local authorities are providing electricity and are selling it for about half the price of that supplied by the so-called power companies, but whenever we bring these matters before the House of Commons the power companies come first. The power will eventually be the people's power, and then we shall eventually cut their claws. We support the Bill as far as it goes, but it does not go far enough. We hope that the time will soon come when we shall be able to say that those things which are necessary for the public welfare, public health and public development, shall not be under the control of companies of any kind, but under the control of the people's representatives.

6.37 p.m.

Mr. G. BRAITHWAITE: In moving the Third Reading, the Minister paid tribute to the friendly atmosphere in which the discussions have been conducted. It is only fair to say at once that that friendly atmosphere has been due in no small measure to the very courteous and conciliatory manner with which the Minister has met those of us on this side of the House who put forward Amendments intended to improve the scheme. We are grateful to the Minister for such concessions as he has been able to make, and I hope that he will permit me to continue in the same friendly strain on this last opportunity in giving voice to misgivings which still remain, in spite of the concessions which he has made, in the hope that they will be on record and may perhaps receive consideration when further legislation in connection with electricity is formulated.
A great mistake was made in taking a technical, Departmental Bill of this kind on the Floor of the House. An effort was made early in the proceedings through my hon. Friend the Member for Springburn (Mr. Emmott) to send this Bill to a Select Committee. Our experience has shown that, with the very difficult matters that we have been discussing, that would have been a very superior procedure. Many difficult and technical matters have been taken in Committee of the Whole House, but it would have been better if counsel could have appeared on behalf of the selected and non-selected stations and the Committee stage conducted in that way.
Reference has been made to what underlies the Bill and to the necessity of obtaining important customers for the grid. The hon. and gallant Member for Hulme (Sir J. Nall) made some reference just now to the financial position of the Central Electricity Board. That position is not one which can be viewed with any very great optimism. Those who have invested millions in the board see, of course, their stocks standing at a very high figure, and they need have no fear, but I feel that it is only right to give voice to my apprehension, if it is not the apprehension of others, that before many years are past the grid will be financed out of the national Exchequer and will have become a definite charge upon the unfortunate taxpayer. That time is probably not very far distant, and so far from the people—as was eloquently expressed by the hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones)—having the benefit of the scheme, they will have the benefit of paying for it as it gets into deeper and deeper water. I do not think that the Central Electricity Board have distinguished themselves up to date.
In Clause 4, the Bill endeavours to set up an organisation under which railways and the owners of non-selected stations may become customers of the board. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Home), when some of us put forward objections in Committee to the financial arrangements which would be made with the railways, held up before us what I would call the Diesel bogey. He said, "You will not get the railways as customers at all unless you give them very preferential terms." The right hon. Gentleman with his great experience
of railways was entitled to make that point. Our case was that in order to obtain those important customers it was proposed that very important overhead charges such as interest and sinking fund were to be paid by someone else, and that someone else was to be the domestic consumer. The Government's formula, and I do not think I am misquoting the Minister, is the olden-time one of swings and roundabouts. What you lose on the swings you get back on the roundabouts. The hon. Member for West Lewisham (Sir P. Dawson) made it very clear that while we are going to lose on the swings it is very doubtful whether the roundabouts will arrive at the fairground at all, and there may be no opportunity to recoup ourselves from that kind of entertainment. The railway argument is very attractive in theory, but in practice it is very doubtful whether the railways will make use of the system which is being laid down by the Bill.
The Minister, whose efficiency in three different offices in this Government and in all the important posts which he has held I greatly admire, inherited this Bill upon taking over the office of Minister of Transport. He has naturally had to do his best with it. There it was, on his desk, and it was his duty to put it through. I am very anxious that he should make a great success of his office. He has been very unfairly criticised about a number of things that he has done in connection with safety on the roads. I hope he will allow me to say, in a very friendly spirit, that I trust that in his electrical administration he will take some note of the things that have been said in this Debate and in the other Debates on the Bill. He must have power to make the grid operate efficiently, but there is something even more important than passing legislation to make the Central Electricity Board and the grid operate efficiently, and it is this: Surely it is the duty of a Government who have done the great things which this Government have done, to do as little as possible to place inconveniences or obstacles in the way of those upon whom they depend for the successful operation of the Central Electricity Board. We are engaged in contradicting the principle which was laid down in 1926, with regard to the supply of power to railways. I suggest, with the greatest respect, that it is unwise
to cut the ground from underneath the people upon whom we depend, and who have done the whole of the very important pioneer work in connection with electricity in this country. It is desirable that the Government should take that point into very careful consideration in the future. For the rest, while we still have our misgivings, I congratulate the Minister on the way in which he has piloted his Bill, and I can only hope that the fears which I have expressed will prove to be groundless.

Orders of the Day — BRITISH SHIPPING (ASSISTANCE) BILL.

Considered in Committee.

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 1.—(Payment of subsidy.)

The following Amendment stood upon the Order Paper: In page 1, line 11, after "Governments," to insert:
and for the purpose of securing a greater measure of employment for British domiciled seamen."—[Dr. Addison.]

The CHAIRMAN: This Amendment is out of order.

6.46 p.m.

Dr. ADDISON: I venture to suggest that the Amendment is not out of order, in as much as the Bill, according to the wording of the Financial Resolution, is
for the purpose of helping the owners of vessels registered in the United Kingdom to compete with foreign shipping"—
and so on. That necessarily involves the ships used having crews on board; and, seeing that the general purpose of that provision is to improve the opportunities for the use of merchant shipping, and thereby necessarily to improve and increase the opportunities for the employment of seamen, and since these purposes are necessarily incidental to and inseparable from the purpose of the Bill, I suggest to you, Sir Dennis, with great respect, that the extension of the definition of the purpose would not thereby extend any of the commitments under the Bill, but would only be an amplification of the purpose which the Bill itself clearly involves.

The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid I must take the view that it is exactly that amplification which puts the Amendment out of order. I put to the right hon. Gentleman his dilemma: If what he says is the case, the Amendment amounts to nothing, and is quite unnecessary. If, on the other hand, it amounts to anything, it amounts to something that is outside the Bill.

6.47 p.m.

Mr. ARTHUR GREENWOOD: I beg to move, in page 2, line 11, at the end, to insert:
(2) The Tramp Shipping Subsidy Committee shall consist of persons having no direct financial or other interest in the shipping industry.
One of the difficulties in the Debates that we have had on this Bill has been the very small amount of information that we have received from the President of the Board of Trade and the Parliamentary Secretary. We have never been informed as to the subsidies which we are told are operating against British shipping, and we have never been told anything about the composition of this Tramp Shipping Subsidy Committee. In the White Paper issued with the Financial Resolution the only reference to the committee was in paragraph 4:
It is proposed to appoint a statutory committee, under the name of the Tramp Shipping Subsidy Committee, to advise the Board of Trade as to the administration of the subsidy, and in particular to examine claims and make recommendations to the Board of Trade regarding them.
Within the next year, £2,000,000, and probably some larger amount subsequently, if the £2,000,000 does not have the necessary restorative effect on tramp shipping, is to be distributed to the tramp shipowners of this country. It is in a way a public dole handed out by the Exchequer to an industry which, so it is alleged, is destitute.
We take the view that where public money is being distributed—whether wisely or not it is not for us now to say—it should only be distributed in accordance with the recommendations of a body independent of the persons who are likely to profit by it. In other words, we are anxious to avoid anything in the nature of a local goose club in this business. This is not the money of the shipping industry; it is the money of the State; and in our view it would be most improper if this committee were to consist of people
who, directly or indirectly, might profit financially from the recommendations made by the committee. It is not unusual, I think, in cases of this kind, where public money is involved, to have a committee which is independent—not that it is very easy to appoint an independent committee, but at least we could appoint a committee of people who were not concerned in any kind of way with the shipping industry, and particularly with the tramp section of it. I should hope that the right hon. Gentleman would be prepared to meet us on this Amendment. He has not shown a great spirit of conciliation so far; indeed, he has shown no conciliatory spirit at all; and on this last evening before the House rises for the festive season he might at least admit the claim that we make that it would do something to improve the texture of the Bill if we had an undertaking that the committee to be appointed would be one which had no interest whatever in the shipping industry. I know that many technical questions are involved, but I am sure that in the right hon. Gentleman's Department there are people who have a certain amount of technical knowledge and who could act as assessors and advisers to a committee of independent persons. I hope that the Amendment will meet with the approval of Members in all quarters of the Committee, and that the right hon. Gentleman will throw out an olive-branch to us, in order to facilitate the passage of the Bill, by accepting the Amendment.

6.54 p.m.

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Runciman): The reason why I have not shown what the right hon. Gentleman calls a conciliatory spirit in the earlier Debates was that I am afraid he himself imported a combatant element into them which very speedily affected the House; but I am quite prepared to be full of sweet reasonableness, and I wish, therefore, to discuss with the Committee in the utmost of good temper the best way in which we can administer a Bill the principle of which has been granted by the House. It is quite true that we are making a new departure in a grant of money of this kind to one very important section of a great industry. The amount that will be expended throughout the year will approximate to £2,000,000. It cannot exceed £2,000,000, but it will
approximate to that amount. The main object that we wish to attain involves the following considerations. We wish to see more British vessels employed, particularly in the trades out of which they have been driven by their subsidised competitors. It is true that, for the purposes of that change-over from the foreigner to British trade, we are going to hold the one against the other, like for like, and are going to do what we can to make it clear to those countries which have embarked on a subsidy system that there is nothing gained by it. Two can play at that game, and the attempt to rest our shipping on an equality with foreign shipping is a justifiable policy which we intend to pursue in this practical way.
In doing this we are, naturally, most anxious not to disturb what, for want of a better word, one might call the technique of chartering. The policy can only be operated by combination between those who believe in the object to be attained, and who are able by their knowledge to provide the best of advice, and I hope the best of guidance, to those who have to give the ultimate sanction for the distribution of this money. Let us see how the thing will actually work. Mr. Smith has a vessel which he wishes to charter, say from South America. He will be required in the first place, if he is to fulfil the conditions laid down, to put his vessel on that route and charter her without detriment to the cargo liners, which may be doing exactly the same service. I am not expressing any judgment on that matter at present; I am merely giving an illustration. On the other hand, he might do so at a rate of freight below that which would appear to be reasonably fair and worth taking. He might, therefore, blackleg on the freight side. He might, moreover, be inclined, if he were a person not of good intent and good will, to blackleg on the side of payment of wages, and, as I explained on the Second Reading, we want to safeguard that point as much as the other.
In doing that, one has to remember that time is a most important element. No charter is negotiated on the Baltic leisurely. It is no use doing that. Shipowners and merchants are perhaps pence, or it may be shillings, apart, but the time arrives when they come a little nearer;
and when they actually fuse, and the transaction is completed, it may be done at a few minutes' notice. In order to make sure that that time shall not be ill spent, and that we should not impede the operation by an extension of minutes into hours, it is essential that those who are operating on the cargo side of the transaction should know the whole technique of chartering. I need hardly tell the Committee that there is probably no side of British management which is more difficult to operate than that of the chartering of tramp vessels in competition with the tramp steamers of the world. It really involves a lifetime of experience and knowledge, and very great skill. I need hardly say that those of us who have had experience of work on the Baltic, as one or two of my hon. Friends on both sides of the House have, are well aware that the clever broker can very often secure business for his client that would slip through the hands of a clumsier or more indolent man. As time is of such great importance, and as the means of attaining the main object we have in view are highly technical, we thought it was as well that we should obtain the most skilled knowledge that we could for the purposes of this work.
There is a precedent for our wishing to obtain that knowledge from within the shipping industry itself, and that is the experience of the Ministry of Shipping. If the Ministry of Shipping had consisted entirely of first-rate civil servants, or individuals who had no interest whatever in shipping, it would have been impossible for it to carry on its operations. The majority of those who composed it were able to lay claim to the knowledge and skill of men who had spent all their lives in the industry, and they were able to conduct the Ministry of Shipping with the success which it ultimately attained. With that experience, and with the necessities of the present case emphasising the experience of the past, we came to the conclusion, after very carefully considering what were the alternatives, that the best we could do was to secure the services of highly skilled men engaged in the industry, who know it in its most complicated form, whose character would be a most important asset in their qualifications, and who could be trusted both by the Government Department and by the shipping industry and those engaged in that industry. I am very glad to say
that there has always been a readiness on the part of the controllers of British shipping to participate in any Government operations of this kind, and, indeed, in almost all the activities of the Marine Department of the Board of Trade, and I think we shall be able to obtain from them nominations which will meet with our general acceptance.
Now I come to the Amendment proposed by the right hon. Gentleman. He says that he thinks it wrong that on a committee administering a scheme of this kind there should sit men who themselves as individuals, or through the companies with which they are connected, are concerned in the industry, and that they should be entrusted with national money. I am afraid that is inevitable. I do not see how it is to be avoided. If we employed on this committee only men who had passed out of the trade and had no interest in British shipping, those men would not know the tricks of the trade in its most modern form. We must, therefore, have men who know from their daily experience exactly against what they have to safeguard; and I do not see how it is possible to do that unless we obtain the services of men who themselves are daily engaged in these operations. The qualifications we require them to fulfil are that they should be men of integrity who are trusted by the industry itself, with all the knowledge they can acquire by daily contact with it. I quite agree with the view that has been put forward that we are bound to use men who are now engaged in the industry, and that we are bound to ask for the assistance of men who themselves will be, to some extent, large or small recipients of portions of this subsidy. In these circumstances, having considered the matter purely from a working point of view, and taking no other principle into consideration, I am bound to come to the conclusion that this was the only way in which we could work the scheme well.

7.2 p.m.

Mr. LOGAN: I am very much surprised to hear the President of the Board of Trade say that it is not possible to find men outside the shipping industry with the requisite knowledge of shipping and whose integrity would be beyond reproach, to serve on this committee. It seems to me a unique proposal that we
should have on such a committee persons concerned in this industry, which is in extremis from a financial point of view, when their function will be to bring about an adjustment in the competition which may arise between tramp ships and cargo carrying ships. It seems strange that it should be beyond the capacity of the Board of Trade to pick men outside the industry who would know the ins and outs of the business. I am sure that there are many such men who can be found. We always find competent men to serve on the many Commissions which are appointed by this House, and they are only too eager to come forward and render any service which they possibly can.
We on these benches are not anxious to hamper the shipping industry, but we do say that when it is proposed to give to that industry huge sums of money, it should be possible to find men of the necessary integrity and knowledge outside the industry to carry out what this House wishes to do. I certainly think that this is a reasonable proposal to put forward. Why should we not have a say in the distribution of this money? Why is it not possible to give this experiment a trial? The question of making arrangement in regard to cargoes and competition one against another will unquestionably take time, even with the men expert in this particular business. If that be so with the experts surely it should be possible to get a body of men who could be brought together as an emergency body to deal with any emergency that might arise. In these days of radio it should be quite possible to get reliable information for any body of men that might be set up.
I support this Amendment because I believe there is reason in it. I feel it will be more just if this proposal were accepted and the country would be better satisfied. I do not wish any shipowner to think that I am saying anything against shipowners, but the tricks of the trade to which the President of the Board of Trade referred are many, and it would be much better that this scheme should be administered in a way that would be above suspicion. If the right hon. Gentleman comes to this House again for any supplementary amount, we should like to get a proper statement of account and to know that this distribution of public money has been made fairly and squarely.
I think that on second thoughts the President of the Board of Trade will admit that we are not so devoid of men of integrity and knowledge, even in the City of London, that it would not be possible to meet the proposal made in this Amendment.

7.6 p.m.

Colonel ROPNER: I am sure that the shipping industry will be glad that the President of the Board of Trade has resisted this Amendment. I think perhaps that on further consideration, and having thought over the words used by the President of the Board of Trade, hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite will agree that the Bill as it stands is most likely to assist the British shipping industry. Important as is the work which it has to do, this is an Advisory Committee and, as is stated in the Bill, the last word as to whether money should be paid or not does rest with the Board of Trade. The amount of the subsidy is already fixed, or at least it cannot be exceeded, and there is no question of this Committee—which I, personally, hope will eventually consist very largely of shipowners—scratching round and asking for a larger sum. The whole basis of the White Paper upon which this Bill is founded, is that there should be inaugurated a scheme to assist shipowners and run by shipowners. I was very much surprised to hear what was said just now by the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. Logan). If I understood him rightly, he has changed his views considerably since he last spoke on the subject in this House. Speaking on the Financial Resolution upon which this Bill is based, he said:
Our eminence in the past has been owing to the personnel of the British Mercantile Marine, the perfection of their seamanship and the management of the whole industry.
A little later he said:
I do not know anyone better able than those in the shipping industry, the shipowners, to manage this business."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th December, 1934; cols. 1454–36.]

Mr. LOGAN: I have not been inconsistent in any statement that I made. I still maintain that from the point of view of seamanship there is none better in the world. From the point of view of management I do not know that there is
anything better. But now we find an application made to the House to distribute money, not out of the funds of the shipowners, but out of national funds and I want to see national protection of national funds.

Colonel ROPNER: I had hoped that I had shown that there is protection for national funds. I cannot see that that which has just fallen from the lips of the hon. Member is in any sense in agreement with his expression of opinion only a few days ago. If it is true, as I believe it to be, that our shipowners are the most efficient managers of the shipping industry in the world, surely they are best able to assist the Government in making this Bill the success that we hope it will be.

7.12 p.m.

Mr. CHORLTON: I would like to inquire what steps have been taken to see that technical and scientific people, not necessarily engaged in the carrying on of shipping, but men who will be acquainted with the principles involved, are going to be appointed to this Committee. It seems to me that we are, in a way, to develop quite a new principle. We are going to assist this industry and we do want to make sure in this new venture that everything is done in such a way that we shall be satisfied later on that we have taken all the care we could. If this is to be purely a commercial Committee—and I am not sure whether my right hon. Friend indicated that this would be so—I cannot feel that it will then take the wide view that should be taken in matters of this sort with regard to the types and classification of ships, the engining of ships and so on. The general idea lying at the root of all this is to bring ships of this type up to the highest state of efficiency, and I do beg my right hon. Friend to appoint to this Committee somebody in whom we technically trained people will have full confidence, so that no point is overlooked in this new and important venture.

7.13 p.m.

Sir PERCY HARRIS: The right hon. Gentleman has been, as always, sweetly reasonable in meeting the arguments of my hon. Friends above the Gangway. On the technical side of the question he built up a very strong case, but I think he would be the first to recognise that
there is a very big principle at stake. To begin with, subsidies are very objectionable. You cannot defend them in principle and you can only justify them in cases of emergency. To pick out one particular industry for financial assistance is always unsound and the right hon. Gentleman will be the first to admit that. I do not pretend to have the knowledge or experience of the right hon. Gentleman, and although I recognise the tremendous difficulty of distributing this new fund in a way that will be to the best advantage of the shipping industry, I do think we are going to make a failure of this business if we allow a committee composed of men, who are directly or indirectly gaing to gain an advantage by the distribution of this money, to decide who is to get it and how it shall be distributed—how much and to which particular owner.
We think that the right hon. Gentleman must try to exercise his ingenuity to see how he can overcome this difficulty and set up a committee that can at any rate give the impression of being disinterested and impartial. They should be men with a knowledge of shipping, perhaps men who have retired, or who for various causes no longer have a direct financial interest in the industry, and who can, at any rate, claim to have no financial interest in the distribution of the subsidy. It has always been one of our first principles that no one should be allowed to decide who shall get public funds who has any direct financial interest in the expenditure of the money. That is of even more importance than the principle of not giving subsidies. The right hon. Gentleman must try to get round this corner. I am sure there is a way. If he cannot meet it, I shall be compelled to vote for the Amendment.

7.16 p.m.

Commander MARSDEN: I am sure that the Committee, before coming to a final decision on this question, will appreciate what the duties of this Committee are. One is the making out of the formula by which the subsidy will actually be given. That is not a question of long negotiation. It is one that must be applied almost on the spur of the moment. An owner who is undercut by a foreign competitor by a shilling, if he knows he can get the shilling through the subsidy, may secure the contract. The formula, surely, can
only be worked out to real advantage if it is devised by people who know the business, and those who know the business are the people in the business. The only Blight criticism that I would make is as to the composition of the Committee itself. I do not believe that the tramp shipping nominees will do other than act perfectly fairly, but it can be used as an argument that, if they have a majority on the Committee, they are influencing the payment of money from which they themselves may benefit. If the majority on the Committee could be the representatives of other shipping interests and the tramps fill up the remainder, I think that would be a fairer division. The hon. Member for the Scotland Division (Mr. Logan) said it was necessary to have men of zeal and integrity, and all the other virtues. But, in addition, they must have knowledge, and I cannot see how that knowledge can be put at the disposal of the Committee unless it includes people within the industry itself.

7.20 p.m.

Mr. WEST: The hon. and gallant Member for Barkston Ash (Colonel Ropner) said that in his opinion the shipping trade would be very glad. I am sure they would. They ought to be very glad. Not only have they obtained a large sum of money to help them in their business, but now it is proposed that the money should be administered by themselves. The hon. and gallant Member who spoke last said that the people who know the business best are those in it. That sounds a good slogan, but it is not always applied. You might say that the people who know most about those who need relief are the unemployed. Why not put them on the public assistance committees? Who knows more about poverty than those who need relieving by the public assistance committees? But if anyone on this side of the House put that idea forward, imagine the talk that there would be about demoralisation. If the principle is a good one, what about the depressed areas? Who knows more about the needs there than the people who are distressed themselves? If we submitted that the money should be allocated in each area by a committee composed of out-of-work miners, I can imagine the outcry about lack of moral fibre, sapping independence and jobbery.
It seems to me extraordinary to suggest that the only people who can effectively distribute this £2,000,000 are the shipowners. The right hon. Gentleman himself said that those who had retired from the industry would be out-of-date and obsolete, but they have not all retired for as long as 20 years. There must be many who have retired in the last 12 months who would not be very much out-of-date. I am convinced that it must be possible to find men apart from those who are going to receive the subsidy who know something about the industry. In any event, the public would have much more confidence in the right hon. Gentleman and the officials of his Department than they would have if those who are going to have this £2,000,000 are the persons who themselves distribute it. We have just as much reason for regarding with suspicion the allocation of the money by those interested as hon. Members opposite would be suspicious if we proposed that those who are destitute should relieve destitution. I believe it would be quite possible to find a committee of 12 competent, honest people who could distribute the money as efficiently and fairly as the shipowners themselves.

7.24 p.m.

Sir FRANK SANDERSON: I heartily support every word uttered by the President of the Board of Trade, and I say that as one who has had very considerable experience in bringing commodities from all parts of the world to the United Kingdom. The right hon. Gentleman made one remark which I will not say was ill-advised, but which was capable of being misinterpreted when he spoke of the tricks of the trade. That might be regarded as a somewhat unfortunate expression. I should have preferred the words "intricacies of the trade." I remember in 1914 giving evidence at the Colonial Office on the matter of subsidies as between Germany and this country. I do not think it is possible for the lay mind to have any conception of the extraordinary methods that are used by foreign countries in subsidising their shipping. It is only those who are directly interested in shipping who can deal with those intricacies and, by the form of subsidy that is now proposed, be able to place both our shipping and our
manufacturing industries on a fair and equitable basis.

7.26 p.m.

Mr. McENTEE: I heard the appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to be more sweetly reasonable than usual. I have always looked on him as one who is capable of being sweet but never reasonable. I have no recollection of his ever making any concession to the Opposition on any Bill that he has been associated with. I do not expect that he is going to give way on this, but there will be a public reckoning. I look on this as one of the greatest public scandals that the House has witnessed for a long time. What would have been said by the right hon. Gentleman and his friends if it had been suggested by any of us that the committee of inquiry into the amount of tax to be paid by co-operative societies should have consisted entirely of co-operators? I know nothing in our history which will appear worse in the eyes of the public outside than that their money shall be handed over to a committee of this character to be distributed in their own interest to themselves. It is an amazing suggestion.
Another amazing suggestion put forward by the right hon. Gentleman is that there is no one, either in his Department or in any of the other business industries of the country, who has the ability, and can acquire the knowledge sufficiently quickly to use that ability, to distribute the money equitably and fairly. I cannot believe any such thing. If that is true, and if the tricks of the trade are so closely guarded within the industry that they are not known even to the officials of the right hon. Gentleman's Department, I am afraid there is not much value in the suggestion that the committee is to make recommendations to them and that they will act or not act as they think fit. If they do not know the tricks of the trade and do not know the value of the suggestions put up to them by the committee, what on earth is the use of having them there at all? You might as well hand the money over right away to the tramp shipping industry and say: "Appoint your own committee, do what you like with it, and we will make no further inquiries into the matter at all. Any inquiries that we make will be made without knowledge, because we have no one competent to make those inquiries or
to assess the value of any information that you give us, and therefore we allow you to carry out the transaction in any way you desire."
The public outside will not view this transaction as an honest one. Like many other Members of this House I have served on public bodies. I know what would be thought of members of public bodies if it were known that they had large financial interests in certain concerns and that when big contracts were to be given, the committee responsible for giving out the contracts were to be composed of such members. Would the Minister of Health accept such a procedure as being a legitimate and satisfactory way of doing business? Anyone knows that such a practice would not be tolerated by the Ministry of Health and that they would not sanction a contract under those conditions. Here are a body of people who have failed in their own business. They have created a set of conditions in the business with which they are associated which shows that they are unable to manage that business successfully. The Government come along and offer them £2,000,000 as a subsidy, and there is no doubt that when that money has been spent further money will be made available. The right hon. Gentleman refuses to give us any promise that when the committee is set up other than financially interested persons will be appointed upon it, so that reports can be given to this House as to the nature of the evidence given in support of claims for assistance and of the reasons influencing the committee to come to certain decisions. I am afraid that public opinion outside will rightly say that this is one of the most disgraceful transactions ever put before this House.

7.32 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel SANDEMAN ALLEN: I do not agree with the hon. Member for West Walthamstow (Mr. McEntee) when he says that the subsidy is being given because of the failure of the tramp shipping industry, owing to inefficiency. It is owing to foreign competition and to foreign subsidies that this course has to be taken. Apart from the merits of the Amendment, I would call the attention of the Committee to its wording. It says:
The Tramp Shipping Subsidy Committee shall consist of persons having no direct financial or other interest in the shipping industry.
That wipes out immediately all importers and merchants, all exporters, marine underwriters, bankers, shipbuilders, port authorities, trade union officials and representatives of seamen. The only people to be admitted, according to the hon. Baronet the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris), are "dug-outs," persons who by the very virtue of their name have left their business. No shareholder or director of any shipping company will be able to take part in the work of the advisory committee. I am not sure that the general taxpayers, simply because they have contributed to the subsidy of the White Star-Cunard merger, will be allowed under this Amendment to become members of the committee. I hope that on every ground the Minister will reject such a ridiculous Amendment.

7.34 p.m.

Mr. WALTER REA: I know enough about trade to appreciate the difficulties which the right hon. Gentleman is trying to get round by his proposal. Indeed they are inherent in the scheme. I pointed out some of these difficulties and dangers on the Second Beading, but I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman quite appreciates the feeling of uneasiness that there is in the Committee, particularly among those who do not know the trade as intimately as he and I do. The right hon. Gentleman is not doing himself justice. He has given the impression to the Committee that the proposed advisory committee is to consist entirely of tramp shipowners sharing out the spoils. I do not believe for a moment that that is his intention, and I am certain he will have representatives of other branches of the shipping industry on the advisory committee. He should tell us how he proposes to set up the committee and what its composition is to be. Some of us would have far more satisfaction in letting the proposal go through, if we were satisfied that the actual recipients are not going to decide upon the distribution of the money. There must be representatives of cargo liners on the advisory committee. An hon. Member suggested that there should be representatives of technical interests on the committee. In that case the tramp owners would be in a minority. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to tell us something about the composition of the committee, and particularly to give
us an assurance that it will not be a committee which can be described as a committee of the recipients of the spoils.

7.36 p.m.

Mr. MARTIN: I wish to reinforce the appeal made from the Liberal Benches. As occupants of the benches below me nearly always oppose the Government, I do not want the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade to feel that no voice has come from the ordinary back bench Member on this particular point. Many back bench Members are willing to support the right hon. Gentleman in his general contention that the people in the industry know best how to run it, but there is some misgiving that perhaps the people in that position might find it very difficult to give confidence to the public, as well as have confidence in themselves that, when behind the closed doors of the advisory committee, they are acting in the interests of the country generally. The hon. Member for Platting (Mr. Chorlton), who is a technical man, put forward a most important point, and I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman could give the House some assurance on the point. We are not only concerned with the commercial men, but with the technical engineers, who, from the point of view of the ships, know a good deal more than some of the commercial men. The right hon. Gentleman did not give the impression, as was suggested by an hon. Member, that the tramp owners wanted to share the spoils. I did not get such an impression. But he did give the impression that there were to be mainly tramp shipowners on the committee. I am sure he did not mean to imply that only tramp shipowners should be on the committee, and I therefore support the appeal that he should give us a reassurance on the point.

7.38 p.m.

Mr. BANFIELD: I also support the appeal which has been made to the right hon. Gentleman. It would be most unfortunate if the committee was so composed that a majority of members were in the position of being able to determine what proportion of the subsidy they themselves should receive and also the conditions under which the subsidy should be paid. The right hon. Gentleman on the Second Reading of the Bill,
in response to speeches made from these benches, promised to give some consideration to the question of the wages, accommodation and welfare of the seamen. If that very desirable object is to be obtained, it is rather unreasonable to put the power into the hands of the shipowners to determine the conditions under which their employés should work. I think that the right hon. Gentleman hardly realises the very big principle that underlies the Amendment. I have not been in this House very long, but I have heard on many occasions right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House complain of the undesirability of allowing people with a financial interest in a certain matter to have the governing voice in such a matter. My hon. Friend the Member for West Walthamstow (Mr. McEntee) mentioned the case of the local councils. Those of us who have sat on local councils and have taken part in local affairs have always endeavoured to carry out the good principle that, when we had public money to handle and distribute, we should not allow anyone likely to benefit from the distribution of the money to have a voice in the matter.
The right hon. Gentleman, who knows more about the technical side of shipping than I do, has suggested, and he has been supported by an hon. Gentleman opposite who, in some measure, I understand, represents the shipowners, that it is impossible for people who do not understand this particular industry to be able to advise the committee. This sort of thing is contrary to the traditions of the great Civil Service. I have been astonished in my own trade and industry to find that men who have not had particular inside knowledge have proved to be far better judges than people inside the trade. It would give tremendous satisfaction to Members on all sides and to the public outside, if the right hon. Gentleman could give us some assurance about the constitution of the proposed committee. Whether he intended it or not, he gave the impression in his speech that, willy-nilly, this must be a committee composed in the main of those interested in tramp shipping. I hope that it was a wrong impression and that he will reassure us. He said at the beginning of his speech that he wanted to approach this matter to-night in a spirit of sweet reasonableness. Although my hon. Friend the
Member for West Walthamstow has suggested that the right hon. Gentleman can be sweet without being reasonable, I hope that he will realise that there is a very important principle here and one of great public interest upon which we are entitled to receive an assurance.
It would be most unfortunate, in the interests of Members of this House who want to do what they can for the shipping industry in the present circumstances, if it went out to the public and to our electors in the constituencies that we were prepared to give millions of public money to a particular industry, and leave that industry to cut it up among themselves. That is wrong and against the best traditions of public life and of this House, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman may be able to meet in some measure all the arguments which we have produced.

7.45 p.m.

Dr. ADDISON: I hope that between now and the Report stage the right hon. Gentleman will make the position clear with regard to this important matter.
I have been thinking of the various subsidies in my recollection that have been granted by this House, and I cannot call to mind any precedent for the proposal in this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman was rather hard up for a precedent. The only one that he called to his aid was the Ministry of Shipping. In the Ministry of Shipping you did not have the shipowners there with their hands, so to speak, in the public purse and helping themselves by putting up the freight rates, and the rest of it. The right hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that there were prescribed rates which had been carefully and critically examined and they were actually lower than some of the freights that were being obtained by those who were let loose for a time. What about the beet sugar subsidy? That is a huge subsidy. We are all guilty parties in respect of that, more or less.

Sir P. HARRIS: We are not.

Dr. ADDISON: The hon. Members below the Gangway cannot wash their hands of it. They were Members of the Government, or they supported that Government. Certainly some of them were Members of it. If they like to hug the sweet consolation to their souls that they are not responsible for it, they are
welcome, but most of us are responsible in one form or another for the continuation of the beet sugar subsidy. There is no doubt about that. What is the case there? There is a Committee but it is not a committee of the men who are going to help themselves out of the public purse. It is a Committee which contains those who are experts in the matter, and, as I know to my cost, the conditions which are prescribed for the receipt of the beet sugar subsidy are exceedingly technical. They are argued out by representatives of the Treasury, with great detail, and public servants administer the subsidy. In regard to the other subsidies that are now being handed out, whether in regard to bacon or meat, it is the Minister of Agriculture who is in charge of the purse. One can well imagine the outcry which the right hon. Gentleman in his unregenerate days would have made if the Labour party had made a proposal like this for some of their friends. We should have had public headlines an inch long in every leading newspaper. Now, there is not even a whisper in public about this proposal.
I do not want to misrepresent the shipowners, but I understand that they are going to make suggestions and nominations, and I suppose that out of that list the right hon. Gentleman will appoint the committee. Whether he will or will not add to it, he did not say. I have never known a case, and I challenge the right hon. Gentleman to produce a precedent, where millions of public money are handed out by a committee so constituted. I am sure that there is no such committee.

Mr. RUNCIMAN indicated dissent.

Dr. ADDISON: I challenge the right hon. Gentleman to produce it. It is true that the right hon. Gentleman will have to give his sanction, but the committee will prescribe the conditions and it is very likely that they or some of them will receive the benefits. I am sure that there is no precedent for that.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: If the right hon. Gentleman wants to know why I shook my head, I will tell him. The precedents are to be found in the list of advisory committees. The right hon. Gentleman himself has been responsible for setting up advisory committees and having advice given to him, and I am sure that when
he desired advice to be given to him he took good care to get men who knew something about the business.

Dr. ADDISON: Certainly. I plead guilty to having appointed a lot of advisory committees, but I have never appointed an advisory committee the members of which were going to help themselves out of the public purse, according to their own prescribed conditions.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I do not wish to interrupt, but it is advisable that we should get down to facts. The committee will not have the handing out of public money. The committee will have the duty of advising. That is so stated in the Bill. The advice given to the Board of Trade will be for the final decision of a Government authority, which can be arraigned in this House.

Dr. ADDISON: I am aware of that and I do not wish in any way to misrepresent the position, but the right hon. Gentleman cannot quote a case where an advisory committee has itself to frame the conditions under which, subject to the consent of the President of the Board of Trade, members of the advisory committee may profit in their own business. I do not believe that there is any such precedent to be found anywhere, and I hope, without in the least wishing to make difficulties for the Bill or difficulties in regard to the proper administration of the subsdy, that the right hon. Gentleman will accept our Amendment. I cannot see that he has anything to lose, indeed I think he has very much to gain, by setting up an advisory committee of persons who are not interested financially in the results of their advice.
Now I come to the question how the work is to be done. The right hon. Gentleman said that these deals on the Baltic are done on the nod. We do not wish to do anything that would interfere with the rapid transaction of business. The last thing in the world that we wish to do is to prevent business being done in a businesslike way. What will the committee do? They will make representations as to the conditions, etc., upon which the subsidy should be granted. The President of the Board of Trade before they are allowed to operate will have to approve the conditions, but the men on the Baltic will know perfectly
well what the conditions are. The brokers will know whether an offer is or is not within the limits of the conditions prescribed by the Advisory Committee and sanctioned by the President of the Board of Trade. Does the President of the Board of Trade suggest that this highly expert technical committee, composed of people who are in the business, would so far as that transaction is concerned, do anything different from any other Advisory Committee? The nature of the transaction is a prompt business deal and whatever the Advisory Commitee was, the thing could not work unless there was a prompt deal. Therefore it makes no difference to the promptitude of the deal whether Mr. A or Mr. B is on the Advisory Committee. They would not telephone to the headquarters of the Advisory Committee or to the Board of Trade or anything of that sort. The thing would be worked out. They would be perfectly conversant with the conditions and they would know whether or not a particular deal was in accordance with those conditions.
The question is, who is to prescribe the conditions? I say that the persons who prescribe the conditions should not be those who are interested in receipt of the subsidy. The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well, and no Department knows it better than his own, that you can lay your hands any day on a number of men of rectitude and knowledge who will advise the Board of Trade on this or any other matter. There is no Department of State which has been better served in that way than the right hon. Gentleman's Department, and there is no necessity whatever to have an Advisory Committee composed in the way suggested of persons who are themselves, or who may become, financially interested in what happens. Whilst I see that there may be some technical objections to the working of our proposal, I suggest that the House of Commons is entitled to know what is to be the machinery of operations and the personnel of the committee. It is going to hand out £2,000,000 of public money.

Mr. RUNCIMAN indicated dissent.

Dr. ADDISON: It is, in fact. The right hon. Gentleman will be no more cognisant of the day to day, minute to minute transactions of the committee than any of the chief officers of the
board. The right hon. Gentleman will, of course, expect that branch of his Department to be properly administered, and he will deal with it if it is not. The work will be done in accordance with the advice of the committee on the scheme of operations. It would be easy enough to get men that this House could trust, and the public would then be able to say, "That is sound enough; that is right." It is easy enough to get men who are not themselves interested in the receipt of the money, or may not be interested. One hesitates to consider what is to be the long-distance ricochetting effects of a precedent of this kind. I am sure that it is a precedent and a very dangerous precedent, and I hope that before the right hon. Gentleman comes to the Report stage he will, in justice to himself and his reputation, and in justice to the House, put us in a position where we can know under what responsible guidance this public money is to be distributed. We are entitled to know that in the interests of the Bill, and I beg the right hon. Gentleman to tell us.

7.58 p.m.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have no hesitation in answering the question put to me from several quarters as to the way in which the committee will be composed, but before I speak on that subject I want to make it quite clear what a committee of this nature is to do. It is true, as the right hon. Gentleman says, that it might be possible to administer all that is required under this Bill without an advisory committee. If we had nothing else to do at the Board of Trade I should be ready to take the chair at a committee of that kind myself, but does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that a Government Department like the Board of Trade, efficient as it is, and staffed by some of the best civil servants, can necessarily know all the commercial side of business and all the details which are necessary in order that we may have this Bill administered with justice to the interests concerned, with advantage to the country, and to attain the main object, namely, fair play for British shipping throughout the world?

Dr. ADDISON: May I answer the right hon. Gentleman? Later on in the Bill he is entitled to appoint officers.
Those officers can be appointed by him. It is done in a multitude of other directions in every Department every day, and he could do it.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The right hon. Gentleman is asking me to dispense with an Advisory Committee of those who have regular up-to-date technical knowledge of this business. I must tell the Committee at once that I am not prepared to undertake that responsibility. Nothing could be more destructive of the efficient running of the British Mercantile Marine than that it should on a very important technical matter, be taken out of the hands of those who every day are engaged in these matters, and managed by Civil Servants, however able they may be, or by politicians whose integrity is beyond reproach. I do not accept the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion as being an arguable proposition. He speaks as though this House were handing out coupons to certain shipowners for voyages, for various classes of vessels, and for freights and routes. I wonder whether he has in mind the White Paper which has been published, and whether he has looked at paragraphs 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13, all of them setting out in full detail the exact way in which these matters are to work.
With a good deal of knowledge of the working of Government Departments and of this industry, I say that the less a Government Department has to do with it the better. At the same time the one thing the Department cannot surrender is its responsibility for the distribution of public money. This will be a truly Advisory Committee, and the Board of Trade in 19 cases out of 20 will accept their advice. They would be foolish if they did not. They will also take full advantage of the technical knowledge which will be placed at the disposal of the Advisory Committee. When Lord Maclay and the right hon. Gentleman himself were in charge of shipping interests neither of them ever attempted to administer payments made to the shipping trade without using the knowledge of shipowners who were themselves receiving some remuneration of this kind. In that case it was not supposed to be wrong because the right hon. Gentleman was at the head of it. He cannot escape responsibility.

Dr. ADDISON: I do not want to, but we did not do that.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: Let me describe in detail what actually happened. The right hon. Gentleman and Lord Maclay realised that they could not deal with all the shipping problems which came before them. Lord Maclay had more knowledge of tramp shipping than any man. He was in charge of one of the largest of the companies. Was he put at the head of the Ministry of Shipping because he was absolutely impartial, or because his boats were not going to draw any advantage? Not at all. He was put there because he was the man who knew best. Who were the other men? The chief executive officer on the liner side was Sir Kenneth Anderson, the Chairman of the Orient line, and who, therefore, would be receiving public money. There was no question then that it was improper for him to be there and give advice every hour of the day to the Ministry of shipping; advice that in 99 cases out of 100 was accepted. There was nothing improper in it.

Mr. PALING: It was not public money.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: They were receiving public money on a scale far larger than this.

Mr. PALING: Was it a subsidy?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: If the hon. Member has anything orderly to say I shall be glad to answer it. I say that they were receiving national money; and were giving advice to the Minister which he accepted in 99 cases out of 100. Let me come to the tramp shipping. What was done in that case? Did the right hon. Gentleman try to get advisers who had no knowledge of the tramp shipping; shipowners who had sold out, or had gone out and who, therefore, had no direct interest in the matter? Not at all. They appointed Sir Ernest Glover, and nobody who knew Sir Ernest Glover would suggest that it was improper for him to give advice because he was receiving some of the money.
The argument of the right hon. Gentleman is not good enough. He himself says that an advisory committee is necessary, and if it is necessary, may I tell
the Committee how I propose to constitute it? Sir Vernon Thomson has been good enough to consent to act as Chairman. Everyone is aware that he has done admirable work for British shipping as a whole. He has been used by the Government in responsible positions on many occasions, and has played a large part in clearing up some of our shipping problems. He will have, I hope, six representatives of the various sides of tramp shipping. There are many aspects of tramp shipping, and they are not all alike. But as this will impinge upon the work done by cargo liners, I hope to have two members on the advisory committee to represent the cargo liners, who will be able to explain their point of view, and ensure that in the decisions which are reached by the advisory committee this aspect of shipping is considered. I hope to have also on the committee an entirely independent person who would know little about the technique of the business but who will be able to inform the other members of the committee how these things strike an ordinary outside person. Such a committee would be a good advisory committee, and I have no doubt would give its advice to the Board of Trade in such a form as would be acceptable to the Government.
The Government cannot surrender their responsibilities, and they are not going to do so. It may be asked whether such a committee is likely to work well. I wonder whether hon. Members have ever heard of the Documentary Committee, which to some extent provides us with a precedent as to the technical advice and guidance which can be given and also the penalties which can be imposed. The Documentary Committee of the Chamber of Shipping is concerned with the various sections of tramp shipping and the pressure they are able to bring to bear has been of great value in providing us with a precedent for the way in which we propose to work the advisory committee. If hon. Members will take the trouble to digest the White Paper they will see how responsible must be the duties of the Board of Trade, and how necessary it is that they should receive as much technical assistance as possible. Therefore, I hope that the Committee will be
prepared to let us go forward and work it in this way. I am aware of the points put by hon. Members below the Gangway. They dislike subsidies, but the House has taken a decision, and the one thing about which I am anxious is that

8.17 p.m.

Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: I beg to move, in page 2, line 14, after "vessels," to insert:
which provide such accommodation for the crews as the Tramp Shipping Subsidy Committee may deem to be reasonable and satisfactory, and being vessels,

the subsidy shall be used to the best effect.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 43; Noes, 120.

Division No. 30.]
AYES.
[8.10 p.m.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
Logan, David Gilbert


Attlee, Clement Richard
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
McEntee, Valentine L.


Banfield, John William
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)


Batey, Joseph
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Milner, Major James


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
Parkinson, John Allen


Buchanan, George
Grundy, Thomas W.
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Harris, Sir Percy
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, North)


Daggar, George
Hicks, Ernest George
Thorne, William James


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
John, William
Tinker, John Joseph


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
West, F. R.


Dobbie, William
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Wilmot, John


Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Kirkwood, David
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Gardner, Benjamin Walter
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George



George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Leonard, William
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Mr. Groves and Mr. Paling.




NOES.


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Penny, Sir George


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilst'n)


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)
Grimston, R. V.
Procter, Major Henry Adam


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Guy, J. C. Morrison
Ramsden, Sir Eugene


Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Reid, William Allan (Derby)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)
Remer, John R.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Rosbotham, Sir Thomas


Braithwaite, Maj. A. N. (Yorks, E. R.)
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Horobin, Ian M.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)


Burghley, Lord
Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin


Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Skelton, Archibald Noel


Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Slater, John


Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (P'rtsm'th, S.)
Keyes, Admiral Sir Roger
Smith, Sir J. Walker (Barrow-in-F.)


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Kirkpatrick, William M.
Smithers, Sir Waldron


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Somervell, Sir Donald


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Leighton, Major Br. E. P.
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Clarry, Reginald George
Levy, Thomas
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Clayton, Sir Christopher
Lindsay, Kenneth (Kilmarnock)
Stones, James


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Lindsay, Noel Ker
Strauss, Edward A.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Llewellin, Major John J.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'ndsw'th)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Cooke, Douglas
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Sutcliffe, Harold


Cooper, A. Duff
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A. (P'dd'gt'n, S.)


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.
McKie, John Hamilton
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Dawson, Sir Philip
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Dickle, John P.
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Eastwood, John Francis
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Marsden, Commander Arthur
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Elmley, Viscount
Martin, Thomas B.
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Watt, Captain George Steven H.


Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
Milne, Charles
Weymouth, Viscount


Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Ford, Sir Patrick J.
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)


Goldie, Noel B.
Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.



Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Orr Ewing, I. L.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Gower, Sir Robert
Pearson, William G.
Captain Sir George Bowyer and




 Sir Walter Womersley.

In our opinion there has been left out of account in this Bill, as we said during the Debate on the Second Reading and also in the discussion on the Financial Resolution, any consideration of the need for providing that certain conditions shall be observed by those who receive the
benefit of the subsidy—any provision that would tend to better the conditions of the crews serving on board any vessel whose owners receive such subsidy. We consider that, in order to put that beyond any shadow of doubt, the words now proposed should be inserted. This Amendment would safeguard the conditions of the seamen. The President of the Board of Trade, in replying to the arguments put forward to justify the last Amendment, gave us a statement as to the advice of the Committee that will be constituted and the manner in which he believed it was calculated to work.

I should like to draw the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to Clause 3 of the Bill, where it sets out what is to be the duty of the Tramp Shipping Subsidy Committee. The Bill lays down there the particular duty—it is not a general duty but a particular duty—of the Committee as to the making of payments by way of subsidies under this part of the Act, and the terms and conditions upon which such payments shall be made. There is nothing set down as to the conditions under which the crew have to be housed on board a ship that gets the subsidy; and what we have heard of some of the tramp owners, and the conditions under which the crews of some of the tramp ships have to live, leads us to believe that unless some very specific statement as to the accommodation in the ships is embodied in the Bill, the probability is that the conditions prevailing in some of these ships will continue to be just those of which so many of the seamen's representatives complain to-day. Consequently, we hope that the President of the Board of Trade will accept the Amendment, which would make this part of the Bill read:
The vessels eligible for subsidy under this Part of the Act are vessels to which this Act applies, being vessels which provide such accommodation for the crews as the Tramp Shipping Subsidy Committee may deem to be reasonable and satisfactory, and being vessels,
and so on. We consider that to be a perfectly reasonable Amendment. It would provide the seamen with some safeguard as to the conditions under which they would live when they are sailing vessels on tramp voyages. We have heard at various times in this Debate references to these conditions. We have
had grievances and complaints brought before us as to the conditions in some of the vessels.

The Parliamentary Secretary may say that the Shipping Subsidy Committee in making its recommendations can consider, under the terms of the Bill as it stands, the conditions under which the men serve, and that they can go into them very carefully before making a recommendation. But that is not sufficient for us. It is too general in its wording. There have been many other general statements in Measures which have been passed by this House, and which, while being discussed, were pointed out to us by members of the Government as phraseology that was quite sufficient to ensure the safeguards that our Amendments were seeking. Yet when those Bills became Acts—the Government having had its way—we discovered that just those general statements to which we had objected were singled out as things through which the proverbial carriage and pair could be driven. Therefore we desire to bring the phraseology of this part of the Bill into such a form that the Tramp Shipping Subsidy Committee, when it is appointed, will have to see to it before recommending a subsidy to be paid to any particular ships or any tramp shipowning company, that the accommodation is such as we set out specifically in the Amendment that I move. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will see his way to embody this Amendment in the Bill.

8.25 p.m.

Mr. LOGAN: I want to emphasise the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) in regard to slum ships. It is a well-known fact that while the Board of Trade has the power of inspection and while ships are inspected and are generally kept up to a certain standard, yet there are ships sailing out of our ports to-day which are not in a proper condition. Those of us who sit on these benches feel that we should be most anxious about the safety of the lives of the seamen, as well as about any question of giving a grant to the shipping industry. The men who go down to the sea in ships are entitled to proper accommodation. I received a letter to-night from a captain in Liverpool informing me of the wretched conditions which exist
in some exceptional eases, though I admit not in all. I am not going to say one word of a general nature about bad conditions. It is quite sufficient for me to know that any men, however few, may have to sail out of the port of Liverpool under conditions in which they risk their lives. If those men are lost, it is no compensation to the people at home to know that good conditions exist in other tramp ships. The loss of even one life with all the misery which it brings into a home is beyond all questions of dividends. I place human life higher than money.

Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: Is the loss of life in those cases due to bad accommodation?

Mr. LOGAN: If the hon. and gallant Member reads what I am dealing with, he will find that the question of accommodation enters very largely into the question of safety. If a ship has not proper accommodation for its crew, if the crew have to work under bad conditions, then I say that ship has no right to sail. If the crew have not proper accommodation below, they are not able to carry out their duties properly and that ship is not in a safe condition. That is my contention. The hon. and gallant Member probably knows what sleeping in a cubicle means and he know that if he has not proper accommodation he will not be able to sleep very well on board ship. He might sleep all right under bad conditions if he had had one or two, but if he has turned in without having had one or two he will not get very much sleep unless he has got a proper sleeping place.

Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: I have had experience.

Mr. LOGAN: I thought the hon. and gallant Member had had experience, otherwise I would not have said that to him. I know he has had the experience. I do not know whether he has had the one or two. Perhaps he has had both. But I am speaking about a matter of which I know something in regard to conditions in the shipping trade. As I say I am not dealing with it in any general way and I want to make it clear that my remarks do not refer to the major portion of the shipping industry of this nation. But I want to protect the good shipowners who give good
conditions as against those other shipowners who compete against them under unfair conditions. I am asking that a restriction should be placed upon such people, not from a humanitarian point of view at all but from the point of view of business competition. Those men who do not carry out the rules, compete unfairly for the carrying trade in the markets of the world.
That being so, this is a reasonable Amendment. It is not going to hit the legitimate trader. It is directed against the kind of man who steals into and encroaches upon the business, employs illegitimate methods and introduces bad conditions. Such a man ought not to be tolerated in the industry and it is reasonable that a safeguard of this kind should be provided in the interest of the industry as a whole. No man who obeys the law need fear the law. Perhaps I am not without sin myself in that respect but the man who is a saint does not know anything about sin and does not want to know. The man who wants to act honestly in business is not concerned with any question of making profits by dishonest methods. It is pests of the kind to which I have referred who bring these bad conditions into the shipping world. The man who risks the lives of his crews has no right to be in the business. The mercantile marine deserves every assistance and it deserves to be protected against those in the industry who are not legitimately carrying on their business. Coming as I do from the city of Liverpool I know something of the dangers which these men run and the wonderful manner in which they do their duty. I regard this as a proper Amendment and one which it would be well for the Government to accept and it is in that spirit that I support it.

8.33 p.m.

Colonel ROPNER: The hon. Member who moved this Amendment said he objected to the general statements contained in the Bill, but I think the Committee will agree that nothing could be more general than the Amendment. The two speeches made in support of the Amendment have conformed with the wish expressed by the President of the Board of Trade that we should take up an attitude of sweet reasonableness in considering these matters. I am bound to confess that both hon. Gentlemen opposite have been quite reasonable, but
I am bound also to make some reference to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) on the Second Reading dealing with the subject of conditions. It has been said to-night that certain grievances have been brought forward by the representatives of the seamen. It has also been inferred that shipowners, by some process of reasoning, weighed up the question of higher or lower dividends as against the question of the safety of the seamen. Speaking, as I think I can, for the whole industry, may I say that we resent most strongly the suggestion that profits or losses on a voyage account are set against the risks which seamen have to run, or that seamen are asked to run greater risks or are subjected to conditions which lead them into greater danger, merely in order that a ship may show a greater profit.

Mr. LOGAN: I am sure the hon. and gallant Member would not wish to do an injustice to the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) in his absence, but what he said was not of general applicability.

Colonel ROPNER: The right hon. Gentleman did make some very general statements, but fortunately, it is true, he referred to particular cases—fortunately, because it is possible in those cases to refute the statements which he made. I would like to dwell on one of the cases which he raised, namely, the loss of the "Millpool," which happened to be a ship owned by the firm of which I am a director. The right hon. Gentleman, who has now returned to his place, quoted a letter which he had received referring to the "Millpool," which was lost in the Atlantic early this year. He was trying to make out, I presume, that the ship was not seaworthy and——

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Captain Bourne): The question of seaworthiness does not arise on this Amendment.

Colonel ROPNER: I was mentioning the question of seaworthiness, because it had been dealt with by a previous speaker, but if you rule it out of order, I must obey your Ruling.

Mr. MACLEAN: I think I kept strictly to the Amendment, which deals with conditions on board ship, not with seaworthiness.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I must point out that the Amendment simply deals with accommodation. There is a later Amendment on which perhaps the wider question may arise, but it does not arise on this one.

Colonel ROPNER: Perhaps I may refer to this particular case later. It was not to the speech of the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean) that I referred, but to the speech which followed his. There is a paragraph in the letter which the right hon. Member for Wakefield read from the same correspondent which most certainly does deal with conditions on board the same ship. The letter read:
'I have been aboard one of the same company's ships, and I can assure you that the state of affairs on that vessel was appalling. Judging by appearances, the apprentices and some of the men had not washed during the voyage, and the officers were not much better. To put it mildly, she was a disgrace to the flag.'"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th December, 1934; col. 775, Vol. 296.]
The right hon. Gentleman invented, I think, the expression "slums of the sea." Just as it is possible to turn a well-built house into a slum by ill attention and neglect on the part of those who live in it, so it is possible in a short time to turn a good ship into one which might rightly be described as a slum of the sea. But I cannot understand for what purpose the right hon. Gentleman read that letter. Is it the duty of the shipowner to go and wash the whole of his crew, or does the right hon. Gentleman insinuate that those who manned that ship were dirty in their habits and should have been subjected to much stricter discipline? The only inference which can be drawn is either that there was an inefficient master——

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Again I cannot see how the hon. and gallant Gentleman's argument is applicable to this Amendment, on which we are limited strictly to dealing with accommodation.

Colonel ROPNER: I was trying to show that the very best accommodation, if you have an inefficient crew, can be turned into what could rightly be called slum accommodation, and I was wondering why the right hon. Gentleman, when condemning accommodation, drew attention to the fact that some of the crew had gone unwashed. As hon. Members opposite are well aware, the accommodation
on every steamer is subject to-day to the control of the Board of Trade. There are Board of Trade regulations which must in every case be fulfilled and, so far as I know, in every case are fulfilled. They are the same regulations that were operative when the Government which the right hon. Gentleman supported were in power, and it seems strange to me and, I think, to the whole industry that some startling and new discovery should have just been made which leads hon. Members opposite to declare that accommodation is now inadequate. I am quite happy in my own mind that our latest ships and almost entirely the whole British mercantile marine do provide, where accommodation is properly looked after, decent accommodation and a reasonable standard of living. I have always said that when you get down to the oldest ships of any fleet in the world there will be ships which, had they been built to-day, would not reach the standard required, but surely it is wrong to condemn as is freely done, the whole British mercantile marine because in very exceptional cases you can find ships which do not meet the standards which we should desire to-day.

8.40 p.m.

Mr. McENTEE: May I say that the conditions to which the hon. and gallant Member for Barkston Ash (Colonel Ropner) has referred when the Labour party were dealing with the regulations for shipping, and the conditions which exist now, are hardly to be considered together? After all, you are giving £2,000,000 of public money to this industry, and you are proposing to lay down certain conditions under which that money shall be given, and adequate provision is being made to guarantee that all those interested as shipowners shall be well looked after. Is it too much to ask the hon. and gallant Member, who, I think, himself said he was interested in shipping, that on those few ships—nobody has referred to anything but a few ships—which are not providing adequate accommodation for their crews, that accommodation shall at least be up to a reasonable standard? I do not think he would say it was an unfair thing to ask or that it was not a legitimate request to make to the Government.
I had the opportunity when I was younger of going down to the sea in a ship and of experiencing the accommodation at that time, and I am well aware that if the accommodation that I was compelled to accept as adequate for me at that time were to operate to-day, it would be looked at by almost everybody as quite unreasonable. But there are ships to-day, although not many perhaps, where the accommodation is altogether inadequate and unsatisfactory. If the hon. and gallant Member for Barkston Ash does not agree as a shipowner, I can tell him that there is a great number of people who are prepared to bring evidence, indisputable evidence, that they themselves are on such ships, are manning such ships; and if the Government desire to make an inquiry into this matter, there will not be much difficulty in satisfying anybody in this House and any number of the public too that there are ships going out from the ports of this country to-day that are a disgrace to the owners and a danger to the men. I wrote a few letters this week to two Departments of the Government, as I have written many before, in regard to the conditions prevailing on one job as against another in the industry to which I belong, the building industry, and I have always argued—and the argument has been accepted as logical and reasonable by all the Government Departments concerned—that when they entered into a contract they should place in that contract what is called a fair wages clause.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Gentleman is now going beyond the Amendment.

Mr. McENTEE: I want to show that the principle of fair conditions or accommodation is recognised by every Department of the Government. They recognise it for two reasons. One is that if the accommodation provided is not sufficient and reasonable, it is unfair to the men themselves. The other reason is that if it is specified in the contract that it shall be provided, it is unfair to those people who are willing to abide by the contract if somebody else does not do it. There is competition between ships as there is in ordinary commerce. The provision of good accommodation means expenditure, and it will be heavier than if the accommodation is bad. When we give away large sums of public money it
is not too much to ask that the owners who get it shall provide the best conditions for the crew. I have seen some of this accommodation recently. If I were asked to express an opinion on the recent conditions of ships, I would say without hesitation that they are not fit for human beings to live in. The sleeping accommodation is in the worst part of the ship, up in the bow, with very limited air space. Lavatory accommodation is unsatisfactory in almost every case and would not be tolerated in any factory. Speaking generally, the accommodation is lower than the cheapest accommodation which can be engaged by a passenger. We have a right to ask that the people who are manning the ship shall have at least as good a standard of accommodation as the cheapest passenger.

8.48 p.m.

Dr. ADDISON: I will not follow the example of the hon. and gallant Member for Barkston Ash (Colonel Ropner), who did not say very much about the Amendment. This is just a question of the eligibility of shipping. This Sub-section relates to the conditions under which ships shall be eligible to qualify for the subsidy. That is the only question with which the Sub-section deals, and it defines the conditions of eligibility. The only condition in this Amendment for which my hon. Friends are contending is that we should not pay any of this public money for a ship unless it provides such accommodation for the crew as the Tramp Shipping Subsidy Committee may deem to be reasonable and satisfactory. That is not a great lot to demand, but it does mean that the subsidy committee or someone on its behalf will not only take account when they advise the subsidy of the qualifications of the vessel as to rates, cargoes and the competition with foreign owners that it has to meet, but will also take a look at what the ship itself is like in order to see the accommodation in which British sailors have to live when on the ship. I will admit that when we put the Amendment down we did not contemplate a Tramp Shipping Advisory Committee on the lines which the right hon. Gentleman described earlier this evening. A committee of that kind would prompt me to qualify rather the form of the Amendment, but
let that go. We say that this committee which will somehow or other manage to be formed into a trustworthy committee, should take account of the conditions on the ship when they recommend that a subsidy should be granted. It is a perfectly reasonable demand and there is nothing excessive in the form in which it is expressed.

8.50 p.m.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Dr. Burgin): The object of the Amendment, as the Committee will realise, is to ensure that the question of accommodation of the crew is one of the matters which the Tramp Shipping Subsidy Committee shall take into consideration in determining whether or not a vessel is qualified for the subsidy. No member of the Committee will quarrel at interest being maintained in questions of accommodation, comfort and safety any more than they will with interest in questions of wages, manning, nationality, and other matters. The only point is whether, in a temporary Measure providing a subsidy for the specific purpose of fighting subsidies given by other nations, it is the right moment to embark upon something which is really an amendment of the merchant shipping law. The question of accommodation is a matter of daily statutory attention by the Board of Trade and does not require to be inserted in general words in a Bill that has a different object. The President of the Board of Trade spoke just now of no one wanting to see any blacklegging in freights or in wages, and I am sure that he will authorise me to say that no one wants to see any blacklegging in accommodation either.
The accommodation in British vessels is a matter of statutory provision. When a ship is built the crew accommodation has to comply with statutory minimum conditions. During her building the vessel is inspected, and she is inspected at other periods of her life by inspectors of the Board of Trade, whose duty is to see whether from the point of view of accommodation of the crew the statutory provisions are complied with. This Amendment either wants the Board of Trade to see that the statutory conditions are complied with, or wants to alter the statutory conditions. If a vessel complies with the law to-day nothing short of an amendment of the
law dealing with accommodation would be of any service. If the vessel does not comply with the law, the inspectors of the Board of Trade have already adequate power to deal with it. You cannot improve the accommodation on a ship by giving the Tramp Shipping Subsidy Committee the power to say whether or not the accommodation is in their view reasonable and satisfactory. That is not the statutory minimum and means absolutely nothing.
Either the vessel complies with the law or she does not. If she does not comply with the law, the proper way to deal with the matter is for any hon. Member who knows of an instance, or for the Seamen's Union, to call the attention of the Board of Trade to it and to have the circumstances investigated. I assure the Committee that the Board of Trade has adequate power to deal with an owner who does not comply with the law, but neither the Board of Trade nor any Government Department has power to alter the law or insist on a higher accommodation than is provided for by the Merchant Shipping Act.

Dr. ADDISON: Will the subsidy be refused to anyone who is found not providing the accommodation which is regarded as satisfactory under the Merchant Shipping Act? That is the point here.

Dr. BURGIN: The right hon. Gentleman says that that is the point, but it is not what the Amendment says, or anything approaching it. The right hon. Gentleman is speaking to an Amendment which asks that accommodation for the crew should be reasonable and satisfactory to the Tramp Shipping Subsidy Committee. I am pointing out that either the accommodation complies with the law, or it does not. If it complies, there is no greater obligation on the shipowner, and nothing that the Tramp Shipping Subsidy Committee could say could alter the law because that would have to be done by an overhaul of the Merchant Shipping Acts generally. It is a matter of knowledge that the accommodation in ships is progressively improving. I do not in the least deny that there may be some vessels in which the accommodation is very bad. We find that state of affairs in any industry. There are black sheep in all trades. That is not in the least
disputed. But the way to deal with the matter is to bring the facts to the attention of the officials and inspectors whose statutory duty it is to see that the law is complied with.

Mr. MACLEAN: If the accommodation on any vessel is such as is described by the Parliamentry Secretary, and application is made for the subsidy, I take it that it would not be granted.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not want to intervene, but a great deal of this discussion is trenching somewhat on an Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. N. Maclean) which I wish to call. He has put down an Amendment to say that the subsidy shall not be granted in certain cases, and I do not wish to cut out that Amendment; but I must warn the Committee that if the discussion goes much further along these lines I may not select that Amendment.

Dr. BURGIN: What I wished to make clear to the Committee was that the constructive way of dealing with this matter of accommodation is for the representatives of the Seamen's Union to meet the officials of the Board of Trade by deputation. It is within the knowledge of hon. Members opposite that such a deputation was received quite recently, and that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade gave a full and complete and, indeed, a sympathetic reply to the deputation. Specific instances were asked for, and as far as I know they will be communicated to the officials who have the duty of investigating them and ordering them to be put right. According to the speeches of hon. Members, what they now ask for is some improvement on the standard of accommodation as at present fixed by law. That cannot be secured by inserting an Amendment to impose a condition as to qualifying for subsidy. That is a matter to be remedied by the appropriate legislative method, which would have to deal with sections in a series of Merchant Shipping Acts from 1894 onwards.
This is a matter of very great concern, and one on which the Board of Trade are continually logging information and experience. The instructions to our surveyors and inspectors are not out-of-date instructions issued 20, 30 or 40 years ago. They are kept up-to-date. The right hon.
Member for Swindon fell into an error in one of his speeches recently in suggesting, after quoting some promise made by the Lord President of the Council when he was President of the Board of Trade in 1922, that nothing had been done. I have looked up the records, and I find that in the following year there was an alteration in the accommodation on the lines which the Lord President of the Council had promised. I only mention these matters in passing to show that they are a day-to-day concern of the Board of Trade, and that the constructive way to deal with this matter is not by inserting an Amendment in a temporary Bill for a year, but by dealing with the industry as a whole and for all time.
May I also point out that we are dealing here with a limited class of ships? Is there nothing wrong with the accommodation in any tanker? Is there nothing wrong with the accommodation in any coastal steamer? Is there nothing wrong with the accommodation in any liner? We do not propose to suggest that regulations which apply to the industry as a whole should be altered for one section of the industry only, and that in a Bill which endeavours to put that particular section on a better competitive footing with foreign subsidised ships we should start by imposing a particular handicap which does not apply to the rest of the mercantile marine. The way to deal with insufficient accommodation is to call attention to any points that ought to be dealt with administratively. The way to alter the law regarding accommodation is by an overhaul of the Merchant Shipping Acts. In the circumstances I ask the Committee to realise that sympathetic though the Government are towards a continuous modification of the standard of shipping accommodation, this is not the way to bring about reform.

8.59 p.m.

Commander MARSDEN: While congratulating the Parliamentary Secretary on the very clear explanation he has given, I would put forward a point of view from another angle. The hon. Members who support this Amendment take up an extraordinary attitude. We have discussed the composition of this Subsidy Committee and it is agreed that the majority of the Members will be
tramp shipowners; and we who have listened to the Debates on this Bill have over and over again heard the accusation that the tramp shipowners, are worsening the conditions for the men in order to obtain bigger dividends; and yet hon. Members support an Amendment which would put those very people above the Board of Trade. That is neither sensible nor logical. The three constituent parties are the owners of the ships, the Board of Trade and the Tramp Shipping Subsidy Committee. Do hon. Members expect the Tramp Shipping Subsidy Committee to say to the Board of Trade that their regulations are either not sufficient or are not carried out? If they submit that they are not being carried out—these conditions which every ship has to fulfil before she is permitted to go to sea—who will go on board to investigate? The Board of Trade's own official. He is to go on board and report, to the Board that, possibly, their own regulations are not being carried out. If the Tramp Shipping Subsidy Committee say to the Board of Trade, "The conditions on this vessel are not those which you have laid down," the Board of Trade will have to send their own official on board to censure themselves. The whole House would wish to see the conditions under which seamen live brought up to the highest possible standard. Certain conditions are laid down. Whether they are carried out depends on the Board of Trade. If the ship does not carry out the conditions she is not allowed to go to sea. If she goes to sea and the conditions get worse, complaint can be made through the usual channels. But to say that the Tramp Shipping Subsidy Committee are to override the conditions which the Board of Trade themselves have laid down is, to my mind, so foolish that I feel certain the Committee will reject the Amendment.

9.3 p.m.

Mr. LOGAN: We are dealing here with vessels which do not provide proper accommodation for the crew, and the Parliamentary Secretary has admitted that there are vessels which offend in this respect. As I understand this Amendment there is no question of altering the law. We say that if there is a case where proper accommodation is not being provided on a ship, and the allegation can be substantiated, there is no necessity for an alteration of the law.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I honestly think it would be for the convenience of the Committee if we disposed of this Amendment now and raised the question of whether the subsidy should be granted on the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean). That really raises the point

The following Amendments stood upon the Order Paper—

In page 2, line 15, to leave out "January," and to insert "November."

In page 2, line 20, at the end, to insert:
or vessels which have been purchased from foreign companies after the first day of January, nineteen hundred and thirty-four, by British owners who have had no previous

which the hon. Member is now trying to make.

Mr. LOGAN: I see the point, and I will defer my remarks until that Amendment is before us.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 34; Noes, 107.

Division No. 31.]
AYES.
[9.5 p.m.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Gardner, Benjamin Walter
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)


Attlee, Clement Richard
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
McEntee, Valentine L.


Banfield, John William
George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)


Batey, Joseph
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Milner, Major James


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Grundy, Thomas W.
Paling, Wilfred


Buchanan, George
Hicks, Ernest George
Parkinson, John Allen


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, North)


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Thorne, William James


Daggar, George
Kirkwood, David
Tinker, John Joseph


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
West, F. R.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Leonard, William



Dobble, William
Logan, David Gilbert
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Mr. John and Mr. D. Graham.




NOES.


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Ramsden, Sir Eugene


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Colonel Charles
Grimston, R. V.
Rea, Walter Russell


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Reid, William Allan (Derby)


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Guy, J. C. Morrison
Remer, John R.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Rosbotham, Sir Thomas


Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.
Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Heligers, Captain F. F. A.
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Horobin, Ian M.
Skelton, Archibald Noel


Bower, Commander Robert Tatton
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Slater, John


Braithwaite, Maj. A. N. (Yorks, E. R.)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Smith, Sir J. Walker- (Barrow-in-F.)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Smithers, Sir Waldron


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Somervell, Sir Donald


Burghley, Lord
Keyes, Admiral Sir Roger
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Burgin, Dr. Edward Lesile
Kirkpatrick, William M.
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Burnett, John George
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Stones, James


Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Strauss, Edward A.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Levy, Thomas
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Llewellin, Major John J.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Sutcliffe, Harold


Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A. (P'dd'gt'n, S.)


Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Clayton, Sir Christopher
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey
Marsden, Commander Arthur
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Cooke, Douglas
Martin, Thomas B.
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Dickie, John P.
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Watt, Captain George Steven H.


Eastwood, John Francis
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Elmley, Viscount
Orr Ewing, I. L.
Womersley, Sir Walter


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Pearson, William G.
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
Penny, Sir George
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'oaks)


Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)



Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Procter, Major Henry Adam
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Goldie, Noel B.
Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)
Captain Sir George Bowyer and


Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Commander Southby.

financial interest in the vessel prior to the date of purchase."—[Captain A. Evans.]

In page 2, line 35, at the end, to insert:
(4) No subsidy under this Part of this Act shall be paid by the Board of Trade unless the board are satisfied that—

(a) the wages paid to persons employed on the vessel during such tramp voyage were in accordance with the rates recognised by the National Maritime Board;
1451
(b) the conditions, of employment on board the vessel were of a reasonable standard for British labour;
(c) the vessel was fully and efficiently manned on deck and below."—[Mr. N. Maclean.]

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Mr. Neil Maclean.

Captain ARTHUR EVANS: On a point of Order. May I respectfully ask whether you have decided to call the second Amendment standing in my name?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member's Amendment is out of order.

Captain EVANS: Further on that point of Order, may I inquire whether the Amendment is out of order because it is considered to increase the charge to the Treasury; because in fact this Amendment is not calculated to have that effect. In Clause 1, Sub-section (3), these words appear in the Bill:
It shall be the duty of the Tramp Shipping Subsidy Committee to advise the Board generally as to the operation of this Part of this Act, and in particular as to the making of payments by way of subsidies under this Part of this Act and the terms and conditions upon which such payments should be made.
The Amendment which I have on the Paper is directed to those conditions, and it is on that point that I respectfully submit that the Amendment is in order.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Gentleman's Amendment would enable vessels to be eligible for subsidy which have been British ships since the first day of November instead of the first day of January. The hon. and gallant Gentleman must bear in mind that this Bill is founded on a Financial Resolution and that therefore both the amount of the subsidy and the terms on which it can be granted are governed by the Financial Resolution. The House of Commons has already approved the Resolution in the following words:
which have been British ships since the First Day of January, nineteen hundred and thirty-four,
and therefore no Amendment which tends to alter that time would be in order, because it is outside the terms of the Resolution.

Captain EVANS: Do I understand from your Ruling that we are not allowed to discuss the terms and conditions of
Sub-section (3) of Clause 1 pertaining to that grant?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not quite see the hon. Member's point.

Captain EVANS: The point I am endeavouring to make is that Sub-section (3) of Clause 1 contains the words:
the terms and conditions upon which such payments should be made,
and my Amendment is directed solely to those conditions, one of which is that the ship must have been registered under the British flag on the 1st January, 1934. It is that particular condition that I am anxious to criticise.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That is precisely the condition which cannot be extended by this Committee.

9.16 p.m.

Mr. N. MACLEAN: I beg to move, in page 2, line 35, at the end, to insert:
(4) No subsidy under this Part of this Act shall be paid by the Board of Trade unless the Board are satisfied that—

(a) the wages paid to persons employed on the vessel during such tramp voyage were in accordance with the rates recognised by the National Maritime Board;
(b) the conditions of employment on board the vessel were of a reasonable standard for British labour;
(c) the vessel was fully and efficiently manned on deck and below."

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, in answering Members who supported the previous Amendment, pointed out that we were seeking to amend the law. If, he said, we were not seeking to amend the law, our last Amendment had really no point, because the powers which we were seeking to confer upon the Committee which is to advise and recommend were already included in the powers given to the Board of Trade, so that, if any of the things which have been suggested were likely to happen, or were happening, those matters could be easily remedied by making application to the Board of Trade and leading evidence that would substantiate the points that were being made. That may be all to the good, but I understand that there are conditions on board a vessel which the present Amendment would affect, because there is actually no statute law, as far as I know, to force a shipowner to carry out the particular point dealt with in this Amend-
ment. The point is that, while it is correct and legal to enforce upon him that the complement of the ship on deck must be a certain number of men, according to the classification of the ship, no such statutory injunction is placed upon him as regards the complement below deck, and it is not necessary for him to keep a specific number below deck according to the classification of the ship, and, as was pointed out in the Second Beading Debate, in certain cases men had to be taken from above deck to assist in the work of those below deck so that the vessel could proceed on its voyage in a proper manner.
While it may be true that the Seamen's Union and other organisations concerned with the men and officers can make representations to the Board of Trade if the scale of wages laid down by the National Maritime Board is not being paid, we have also to bear in mind a fact which was admitted, I think, about a year ago, when a Debate on the question of subsidy first took place, on a Motion by one of the Members for Newcastle. That was that certain officers and men employed in ships had voluntarily agreed to a reduction in their wages some time before the issue of a certain document by a body of shipowners in this country; and I take it that the fact of their having agreed to a voluntary reduction might place the vessel in question and its owners outside the scope of the maritime law as regards the enforcement of the standard of wages laid down by the National Maritime Board. We say, however, that, where the House is asked to give £2,000,000 to the owners of a certain class of ships, they ought to pay the Maritime Board's rates of wages, and ought not to ask their officers or men to agree to a voluntary reduction in their wages—that the Maritime Board's rates of wages should be strictly observed, and that no reduction, whether voluntary on, the part of the men and officers or enforced by the owners, should operate on board a vessel which is in receipt of a subsidy.
In the White Paper we are told that one of the reasons for the subsidy is to secure the stopping of the competition which exists between tramp owners—"blacklegging" is the word actually used—the blacklegging of one tramp shipping company upon another, black-legging so far as freights are concerned,
in order to get cargoes by reducing their freight rate below that of some competing shipowner. Nothing is said, however, either in the Bill itself or in the White Paper, about the blacklegging that goes on by reducing, not freight rates, but either by getting the men voluntarily to agree to a reduction or by enforcing a reduction upon them. When we are discussing the granting of £2,000,000 to shipowners of this class, and when a specific committee is to make recommendations upon it, we are justified in endeavouring to secure, to the crews who are working such vessels, the best conditions possible, either by the law laid down in the Acts which govern shipping, or, where no such Acts prevail, by laying down a standard that will be observed as one of decency and comfort. If the tramp shipowners are entitled to get a subsidy, the seamen and officers on board their vessels are entitled to see to it that their standard of life on board such vessels is not reduced.
The President of the Board of Trade was very anxious that my right hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Dr. Addison) should study the White Paper. I have studied the White Paper, and I find that while it contains many references to the shipowners, there is not a single reference to the men who man the ships. No reference whatever is made to them, from beginning to end. The President of the Board of Trade might reply that this is purely a case of granting a subsidy to the shipowner and that it was, therefore, unnecessary to say anything about the seamen. But we maintain that under the conditions of shipping to-day as regards wages paid and conditions of employment aboard the vessel, and as regards the vessel being fully and sufficiently manned, the seamen are entitled to have regard paid to these important aspects of their employment. The President of the Board of Trade is here to look after the conditions of the seamen as well as the seaworthiness of the vessel. It is his duty to look after the standard of the ship, and it is also his responsibility to look after the standard of life of the crew. We trust that the right hon. Gentleman will agree to accept our Amendment, and that he will put it into operation as one of the conditions which this advisory committee must bear in mind. If they do not take this into consideration, if they pass for the subsidy
a vessel which does not comply with the conditions laid down in our Amendment, then we hope that the President of the Board of Trade, who is to have the last word regarding the grant of a subsidy, will see to it that no subsidy is paid to such an applicant. I hope that he will accept our Amendment.

9.28 p.m.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: In supporting this Amendment I wish to make a personal explanation. When we were discussing this subsidy before I made a certain statement regarding the Clan Line and also regarding the firm of Messrs. Cayzer, Irvine & Company, Limited. I have written to the hon. Member for Chester asking him to be here, and I see that he is in his place. He wrote to me asking me to be here last Friday, but it was quite impossible for me to be present then; otherwise I should have been delighted to be in the House. But as the result of his communication to me, and after reading the report of his statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT, I got the executive of my union, the Amalgamated Society of Engineers, to make further investigations into the statement I made. The hon. Member said:
As a matter of fact the firm of Cayzer, Irvine and Company, Limited, and the Clan Line of the Clyde are one and the same, because Messrs. Cayzer, Irvine and Co. are managers of the Clan Line."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th December, 1934; col. 739, Vol. 296.]
What I had said was:
Those firms systematically ask engineers, after agreeing under the National Maritime Board Agreement, to sign in their contract that at the end of their voyage they will forego so much of their wages to the firm."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th December, 1934; col. 1470, Vol. 295.]
That is not true. I was misinformed, so far as Messrs. Cayzer, Irvine and Co. are concerned and the Clan Line. The name of the firms that do that have now been sent on to me by my executive. The names of the companies who endeavour to get their engineer officers to make contracts to refund part of their wages, and who also endeavour to get them to sign on under the National Maritime Board scale were Messrs. Common Brothers and Messrs. Dalgleish, North-East Coast shippers. That is the statement signed by Mr. Bradley, the member of our executive, whose business it is
to negotiate, on behalf of marine engineers connected with our union, with the Shipowners' Federation, etc.
Having explained that, I come to the question of wages and conditions raised in this Amendment. The hon. Member for Chester was not satisfied simply with that; in dealing with these two firms he wanted to gloss over conditions obtaining under other firms as well. Dealing with the statement that they have done away with the fifth engineer, he went on to tell the House that it was something peculiar because, he said, in some ships they have six or seven engineers. We engineers know all about that perfectly well; but the fact that they have done away with the fifth engineer meant that they have done away with the sixth and seventh engineers and replaced them with probationary engineers and staff at £2 a month. The hon. Member for Chester admitted that in his speech.

Major Sir HERBERT CAYZER: In the first place I am not the Member for Chester, but the Member for South Portsmouth.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: With so many of your family in the House I get mixed up among them.

Sir H. CAYZER: I knew that the hon. Member would be willing to withdraw when he had the true facts, and I wish to say how much I appreciate the way in which he has withdrawn that statement. With regard to engineers, I said that five engineers are the ordinary number, but that some ships had seven. I said, as regards ships carrying five engineers that we certainly did do away with the fifth engineer and carried four, but that under the Board of Trade rule we were only required to carry three; so that in taking four we were taking one in excess of the requirements. Then I said that we looked round to see if we could do anything regarding the unemployed and regarding probationers, so that they might be able to keep their hand in. We made up a scheme for taking on probationers, supernumerary, auxiliary, and in excess of the establishment, and gave them £2 a month, plus food and accommodation, which works out at about 35s. a week. In this way we have given employment to a great many probationers, who are only too will-
ing and anxious to get that employment instead of going on to the national insurance, which they did not want to do. They get a chance of keeping their hand in, of getting sea sense and of getting taught, and I can assure the hon. Member that if he asks us to drop that scheme he will get no thanks from the probationers who have had the good fortune to make use of it.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: You can see, Sir, how easy it is for the hon. Baronet and myself to come to an amicable arrangement across the Floor of the House, but it is quite a different matter with the folk that we are talking about. I know what it is to be down below in the engine-room, and the conditions that the hon. Baronet has explained are the very opposite to those that appertain. I have four letters from the probationers about whom he speaks, to our union, and I will show them to him privately. I have another letter from a chief engineer in my constituency who has worked for the hon. Baronet's firm for years, and he tells us the conditions that hold good. He says he does not believe that the Cayzer family really know what is going on in their business. If they did, he is quite sure they would put a stop to it. I am going to hand the letter to the hon. Baronet. The conditions for the engineers in some of these tramp steamers are nothing short of hellish. Talk about being driven at the point of the bayonet! They are driven at the point of starvation.
What I am saying is irrefutable. If we can get the big firms to toe the line, we shall get the small ones. The big firms will back us, because the tendency to-day is to crush out the small man, and we want to crush him out because he is not fit to compete, and he is crushing the worker worse than the big firm. The Parliamentary Secretary has a very lucid way of explaining things. The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland always assures us, when we move any Amendment, that if we would just examine it carefully, after due consideration and deep deliberation we should find that it would not accomplish what we set out to do, that it would have the very opposite effect. That method of procedure is as old as the hills and we are not going to be "kidded" by being told that we require to get the Act of Parliament
altered, that ships as now run have to conform to the rules and regulations of the Board of Trade and the Maritime Board.
You are complaining because we are raising this question at this time. This is a subsidy to put the shipping industry in a better position to compete with the foreigner, and it is said to be unfair of us to take advantage of it to ask that humane conditions should be enforced upon whoever is going to participate in the subsidy. I do not see why the Parliamentary Secretary should object to our doing this. It is our duty to avail ourselves of every opportunity that presents itself to us, and this is an opportunity. We were told on the last Amendment that we have no right to make a demand for betterment for the men. It is to be betterment for the shipowners, who with this £2,000,000 are going to recondition their ships. We are going to build better ships, faster ships, ships which will be more able to compete with the foreigner. Surely the most important thing on board ship is the men. The reason that the men join a trade union is to protect themselves against the shipowners, and our union is continually quarrelling with the conditions that prevail on the ship.
I want the President of the Board of Trade to assure me that it will be intimated to the firms I have named that do these most despicable things and do not observe the conditions laid down by the Maritime Board, that they will have to do so, and, if they do not, they will not participate in the subsidy. Surely, there is nothing outrageous in that. I am not taking any mean advantage. It does not matter a button to me whether the foreigners run away with trade or not, if we have to reduce our folk to the level of the Chinese, to the Coolie level, in order that England may compete with the foreigner. We are going to do nothing of the kind. That is the logical conclusion of your argument. If not what does it mean? We are not asking for anything out of reason. There is no exaggeration, and nobody knows better than hon. Gentlemen sitting opposite, about the conditions which obtain particularly in the tramp ships. Six beds, 20 men, that is the accommodation in many of your tramps. I have many documents here which have been sent to me from our union giving chapter and verse, names
and everything else. Here is the Clan Line. The hon. and gallant Member for South Portsmouth (Sir H. Cayzer) said in his speech on Friday that the Clan Line engineers sign off and sign on again the same day when the ship is in the home port. That is quite true. Why? You should always ask the question:
If I'm design'd yon'd lording's slave,
by nature's law design'd
Why was an independent wish
E'er planted in my mind?
If not, why am I subject to
His cruelty, or scorn?
Or why has man the will and pow'r,
To make his fellow mourn?
You shipowners have the power, and you are exercising it, to make your fellows mourn. Here the engineers mourn. The crew of the Clan Line other than the officers are all coloured people, and therefore they cannot be paid off in the ports in the United Kingdom. As the crew have to be fed, it is cheaper to sign on the engineer on the ship's articles and feed them; otherwise they would have to be paid in the terms of shore pay, which would be a good deal better for the man and more expensive for the shipowner. Also, when the ship is in port and the engineers are on articles, the company can keep the engineers working overtime when the ship is being discharged, to look after cranes, etc., and no overtime payment is made. Supposing they keep them, as the stevedore on many occasions does when discharging cargo, working right through night and day, there is no extra pay. That is the reason why they sign on again whenever they are discharged. It was made out that this was something good—making of honesty a virtue.

Sir H. CAYZER: Will the hon. Member tell the Committee what charge he is making against my firm now, because I am getting a little tired of the various charges. If the hon. Gentleman continues to make them—I do not want to have to do it, but it is only fair to my firm—I hope that he will repeat them outside this House. He enjoys the privilege of this House, and I ask him to respect that privilege. If he has a case I will try my best to answer it, but to keep on making charge after charge is not very fair to me. I say again that we do employ these engineers. They sign on the day they sign off, and I do not see
anything wrong in that. What does the hon. Member ask us to do? Not to do it?

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Yes, I ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman not to do that. I am stating the facts. It is our representative putting the case personally before the Shipping Federation protesting against what the hon. and gallant Gentleman's firm does.

Sir H. CAYZER: Sign off and sign on the same day?

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Yes.

Sir H. CAYZER: What is wrong with that?

Mr. KIRKWOOD: It is wrong. It is done in such a scientific fashion. The marine engineers used to get a fortnight's holiday, and if they did not get it they received pay. My union distinctly deny the statement that the men, in the event of having to work right through the year without getting that holiday, get double time. In many cases they are not paid extra and the allowance is not made. That is their reason for making the statement that the men are signed on right away. If they were liberated the company would have to pay them for the fortnight they were on shore.

Sir H. CAYZER: I replied to that the other day and said that the men got 14 days' leave, but that owing to the exigencies of the service you cannot guarantee every year automatically, but that we always try to make it up. I said it distinctly—and if we cannot make it up we try to make it up to them by giving double pay for the fortnight they did not receive. It does not come all at once, but that is the system, which works out over all in that way.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I will not pursue the matter further. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] If hon. Members treat the matter in that fashion I will pursue it. I have any amount of evidence, but I have no desire to take any advantage. The hon. and gallant Gentleman challenged me to make the statement outside. I was challenged once by a Secretary of State in 1926 to repeat outside a speech that I had made in this House. I went outside and made it, and they fined me £25. I am anxious to withdraw any statement that I cannot substantiate. I
would withdraw it root and branch. I would withdraw it in toto. Anything which I believe to be true I would state here, and I would state it, and I would state it at the court of Heaven, never mind the circumstances. I resent the idea that I am taking advantage of the privilege of the House of Commons. It is a privilege which I appreciate and something we should all guard very carefully and very jealously. Therefore the House may rest assured that I will not take advantage of any privilege.

Colonel ROPNER: Our objection is that the hon. Member makes wild statements, finds them to be untrue and then withdraws them. On this occasion he is making statements which I am sure he will find to be untrue when he tries to confirm them. Those statements are given publicity in the Press. It is unfair to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Portsmouth South (Sir H. Cayzer), because he may not have a chance of refuting what the hon. Member says to-night.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I have safeguarded myself. I have given the name of our executive man, Sam Bradley, who empowered me to make this statement. I am not making it merely on hearsay. He is our executive man.

Mr. SLATER: Did he give you the last information?

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I am asked if he gave me the last information, which I found to be inaccurate. No, I take the responsibility for that. I am not blaming anyone for that. The statement that I am now making is signed by him, and he is our representative. He is the accredited representative on the executive, with 250,000 members in Great Britain. When the hon. and gallant Member spoke about the provisional engineers, he was asked by the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Paling) about this great, handsome salary of 35s. per week. He must be reckoning their keep, all-in, and so much for lodging. The wage that they actually draw is £2 a month. They are down to the level of a servant lassie's wage, although they are highly skilled engineers. The hon. Member for Wentworth asked him, Are they adults? The answer of the hon. and gallant Member was "No." That statement is found in column 741 of the OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th December.

Sir H. CAYZER: Read on.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I will do so.
No, they have been apprenticed, but they have finished their apprenticeship."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th December, 1934; col. 741, Vol. 296.]

Sir H. CAYZER: I was under a misapprehension as to his question. I corrected myself immediately.

Mr. LOGAN: Are we to understand the hon. and gallant Member to say that these young men of 21 years had not served full apprenticeship?

Sir H. CAYZER: I said that they had served their apprenticeship.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: The hon. and gallant Member said "no," when he was asked whether they were adults.

Sir H. CAYZER: I did not say that they were not adults. I said "no," and I immediately corrected myself.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: It is in the OFFICIAL REPORT, and I can only deal with the OFFICIAL REPORT. I want the President of the Board of Trade to weigh up the situation very carefully in regard to these provisional engineers. These young men make applications. Firms are able to take them direct from the shop up to the position of third engineer. They have to pass the Board of Trade examination before they can go in as second engineer or chief engineer. These young men who made application had already served their time. They had served their legitimate apprenticeship. Before they have finished their time they must be 21 years of age. The employers of labour in this country when they formed the Federation of British Industries laid it down in a manner that had not previously obtained in this country, that before a youth could be apprenticed as an engineer he had to be 16 years of age and he had to serve five years. That meant that they had to be 21 years of age before they were journeymen. These young men who have made application to the different shipping firms to get on as engineers have gone through that apprenticeship. I want the House to understand that it is not simply a case of working at a trade through the day. A young engineer apprentice who is going to be a marine engineer spends every winter at the night school while he is an apprentice. He has the ambition,
every young engineer in a marine shop has the ambition, to get to sea, because it has always been a better paid job, and because the highest type of men have gone to sea.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: All this may be true, but I think the hon. Member is getting rather far from the Amendment.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I am trying to establish my claim for better wages than are paid by certain firms who will be making application for the subsidy. I am appealing to the President of the Board of Trade to see to it that any firm that does these things will not participate in the benefit of the subsidy. I am perfectly satisfied—I will not pursue the matter too far, because it will not do me any good—that if the Committee understood this thing they would agree with me. Here are these young men, who are imbued with the idea of getting into a better class, with better wages and the highest standard. Instead of that, the situation has arisen that when they go to sea there is blacklegging of the very worst type. Our trade union has protested time and time again against the idea that they should be sent to sea for nine months and all that they get is £2 a month, 10s. a week. It is simply ridiculous. Then we are told on the face of all that that they are supernumeraries. It is all nonsense. There is no shipping firm that carries supernumeraries.

10.4 p.m.

Sir H. CAYZER: Does the hon. Member imply that I am not telling the truth? He is absolutely contradicting me. I really must protest. He keeps talking about blacklegging and low wages, and then he refers to these probationers. He is trying to infer that my firm are paying wages below the scale, that they are not conforming to the conditions. I challenge him to say outside what he is saying inside the House. He has not a leg to stand upon. We pay wages above the scale; and this is a purely voluntary scheme in order to help the situation. These young engineers are losing their skill, they have to go on national unemployment insurance. We have hundreds of them waiting to be taken on, and we say: "We will do it voluntarily. We do not require you, we have already one engineer more than we require, but you
can come on as a supernumerary, and we will give you enough to keep you going up to 35s. per week. If you do not want you need not come, but if you come we hope you will be able to learn your trade, keep your sea sense and you will not be losing your skill." It is a purely voluntary scheme to try to help engineers, and if the hon. Member objects to it then I can tell him that the probationers want us to continue it. You may have two or three who object, you will always get a number who will object, but the vast majority are only too glad of the opportunity of keeping their skill and their sea sense.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I am quite prepared to say outside what I have said in the House. The challenge of the hon. and gallant Member does not cut any ice. He says that these young men get £2 per month instead of £13 per month. If that is not driving down the level of wages I do not know what is. He also says that his firm pay engineers above the standard rates laid down by the National Maritime Board agreement. That is true; but why? Because they save £9 per month on these engineers and can afford to pay the other engineers 5s. or 10s. per week more than the standard rate.

Sir H. CAYZER: Excuse me, we have saved nothing. There is no need for us to take up this voluntary scheme at all, and we are saving nothing. Indeed, it is an extra expense to us.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I will not pursue the matter any further. I appreciate the fact that the Committee has allowed me an opportunity of placing these facts as far as I know them before the Committee, and I hope that the President of the Board of Trade will give the union representing these engineers an opportunity of placing before him what are given to me as facts, and if they are facts I ask the right hon. Gentleman not to give a subsidy to firms which act in the way I have tried to put before the Committee.

10.11 p.m.

Mr. DICKIE: I must congratulate the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) on the manner in which he apologised for the mistake he made at the beginning of his speech. He then went on to make grave and serious allegations against two firms in the North of England, to which it is impossible to
reply at the moment. I have no doubt that an inquiry will be made into them and a reply given in due course. I desire to say a word on the Amendment, if only because I interrupted the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) when this matter was last under discussion. I am sure the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs will excuse me if I do not follow him in his somewhat rambling speech and confine myself to the Amendment. It appears to me to be a matter of grave concern when the Government are engaged in an attempt to do something to help one of our vital industries, which is passing through such a period of depression at the moment, that shipowners should be subjected to such grave allegations as have been made during the Debate this evening concerning the manning, the victualling and the accommodation of British tramp steamers. It seems to be forgotten that all these matters are regulated by the National Maritime Board which, although it is a voluntary body, is working very well.
I have grave doubts whether it would make for smoother working that this House should attempt to give statutory authority to the regulations of a non-statutory body. Wages are governed by the National Maritime Board, and the statement issued by the Board of Trade only yesterday clearly shows that the wages paid in this section of the British Mercantile Marine compare favourably with those paid by foreign countries. I have put my name to an Amendment regarding wages, but I confess that I did so with considerable diffidence because of the principle involved. I doubt very much whether tramp shipowners themselves would object to the payment of the National Maritime Board's wages being made compulsory, except on account of the principle involved. It is already being done voluntarily in the great majority of cases. May I remind hon. Members of a striking passage in the speech of the President of the Board of Trade on the 14th of this month:
The shipowners' committee which will act in an advisory capacity with regard to these matters will, of course, have to take into account each case which comes before it. I am already assured from such consultation as I have had in conference that they would not regard blacklegging in wages as being less penal an offence than blacklegging in freights, and they would
refuse to advise the grant of a subsidy to an owner who did not pay National Maritime Board wages."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th December, 1934; col. 783, Vol. 296.]
That is as definite an undertaking as the Committee could expect from a Minister, short of a provision in an Act of Parliament. There are grave dangers in trying to incorporate wages in an Act of Parliament, as the miners found out during the discussions on the Minimum Wage Bill in 1912. The other parts of the Amendment cover victualling and accommodation. I would point out to the House that the dietary scale is already governed by the National Maritime Board, and is better than the victualling of similar vessels sailing under foreign flags. So far as I am aware, there is very little complaint on this ground, and if there were I have not the slightest doubt that the Sailors' and Firemen's Union is to-day in a position quite strong enough to defend the interests of the men in that particular direction.
Now with regard to the general conditions. The right hon. Member for Wakefield said that the conditions in the tramp section of the mercantile marine were the worst in the world. I said on Friday last that that was definitely untrue, and I repeat to-night that in our vessels the accommodation is superior to anything provided in similar vessels under any foreign flag, while even the right hon. Member for Swindon (Dr. Addison) has admitted you cannot do impossible things with existing ships so far as accommodation is concerned. The conditions prevailing in the tramp section of the British mercantile marine, the section of the industry with which this Bill is dealing—which seems to be forgotten in certain parts of the House—are better in these three directions of accommodation, manning and victualling than are to be found in similar vessels sailing under any flag in the world. No one is going to deny that there are black sheep among the shipowners. It has been mentioned more than once to-night that there are good shipowners and bad shipowners. There are good sailors and bad sailors, good employers and bad, good workmen and bad. There are good Socialists and there are bad Socialists: a sentiment to which my hon. Friends below the Gangway opposite would very cordially subscribe.
My hon. Friends on the other side are picking out a few isolated cases. It is all very well for the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. Logan) to say that no doubt there are exceptions, but Members on that side imply that what they say applies to the whole of the British mercantile marine. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] That is the inference to be drawn from the argument.

Mr. LOGAN: What do you do with smallpox cases in your district?

Mr. DICKIE: We isolate them. But that has nothing to do with the subject under discussion. I find it very difficult to understand the connection. I have already mentioned that the President of the Board of Trade has definitely laid down that if the conditions are not complied with, the subsidy will not be granted.

Mr. BUCHANAN: If that is so, what is the objection of putting it into the Act? My objection is that it is not in the Act.

Mr. DICKIE: The hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) has not been in the House very long, or he would have heard the reply given, that the matter is dealt with in the Merchant Shipping Acts. The Member for Dumbarton Burghs had a great deal to say from personal experience. Let me give the House a litle personal experience, and let me ask the House if I should be justified in building the same case on my experience as he seems to build on his. When I was engineering we went to Savannah, in the Southern States, to carry cotton to Germany. Then we went round from Bremen to Cardiff. Incidentally I may mention that at Cardiff—for this has a bearing on the subject, too—because we were going to the other side of the Suez Canal, we changed from a British white crew to a Lascar crew. We went to New York. We went from New York to Philadelphia. From Philadelphia we went to Japan. From Japan we went to Australia. We come home from Australia with a cargo of wool. When we were being paid off the owners' representative came on board and we were summoned to the saloon—officers, engineers, sailors and firemen—and told that since the voyage had been very profitable we were each to receive a bonus of a month's wages in recognition of our work.

Mr. J. JONES: That was in the good old days.

Mr. DICKIE: I should not have been in the least surprised if I heard some hon. Member opposite declare that he did not believe it.

Mr. JONES: No, we enjoyed the joke.

Mr. DICKIE: I wonder what hon. Members opposite would say if I claimed that because of that exceptional case shipowners generally were generous, open-hearted philanthropists ready and willing, indeed anxious and looking for opportunities to share their surplus profits with their workers. The parallel is complete except that the boot is on the other foot. There is no validity in the exceptional cases which have been quoted from the benches opposite. There is another point which has already been referred to by the hon. and gallant Member for Barkston Ash (Colonel Ropner). Hon. Members opposite are continually acclaiming themselves as defenders of their own class and yet the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) in his speech last week quoted this expression from a letter:
Judging by appearances the apprentices and some of the men had not washed during the voyage and the officers were not much better.
These officers and men are presumably of the class of which we hear so much from hon. Members opposite. That statement which the right hon. Gentleman quoted is an aspersion on a hard working and respectable body of men who are engaged in one of the most hazardous occupations in the world. Yet we did not hear one word of protest from the benches opposite against an accusation which stigmatised these men as scallywags who had not even the decency to keep themselves clean—an outrageous accusation. I hold no brief for the shipowners or for anyone. I am not here to defend the shipowners. As an hon. Member opposite remarked there is a sufficient number of them in the House and they can defend themselves. But I do hold a brief for fair play and although it may appear a strange doctrine to hon. Members opposite I hold the view that the shipowner is entitled to a fair crack of the whip just as much as the sailor or the Socialist, or anyone else.

Mr. LOGAN: You are giving them £2,000,000.

Mr. DICKIE: We are giving a subsidy after mature consideration, after long and profound inquiry and after resistance to the proposal by the President of the Board of Trade. No one likes subsidies, but this is one of our basic industries and it is in a position of such grave danger that unless the State comes to its aid not only the shipowners but officers, engineers, sailors and firemen as well are going to suffer. Numbers of these men are unemployed to-day and they cannot hope to regain their employment until the mercantile marine is restored to something like its former prosperity. In my judgment, there is no justification for the violent, extravagant, and exaggerated talk to which we have had to listen, of coffin ships, of convict accommodation, of slums of the sea, of under-feeding and of under-manning. I speak as one who knows, and I say there is not a word of truth in these wild allegations.
The hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, in introducing this Bill, referred to Kipling. Those who have been the other side of the Canal know that the India of Kipling has practically passed away, but it is not the only thing that has passed away. The vivid description given by Kipling, in one of his best-known poems, of a tramp steamer which put out to sea in the old days, overloaded, undermanned, and meant to founder, is as much a thing of the past as is the India of Kipling to-day. There are no "Bolivars" to-day. I believe the charges which have been made against the shipowners generally are utterly and absolutely unjustified, and that they are inspired only by political opportunism. The voluntary methods of adjusting these matters between the trade unions and the employers have worked well, and they ought to be maintained, and for that reason I hope the Government will not accept the Amendment.

10.27 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: I feel rather as if I am butting into a family party, which this discussion appears to be, a family in which there seems to be a certain amount of acrimony, but I make no apology for saying something on this question, because anyone who represents Merseyside must
be interested in the distressing conditions of those who earn their living at sea. I am neither a shipowner, nor have I been before the mast. If I were a shipowner, I should probably be bankrupt, and if I were a sailor, I should likely be unemployed. There does not seem to be very much attraction in either side, but I have interested myself in the case of the officers of the mercantile marine. I presented to the House a monster petition some months ago with regard to these men and their grievances, and after a certain amount of ceremony it was put in a bag behind you, Mr. Speaker, and, as usually happens with petitions, nothing was done. But to-night and in all these debates, when the questions of wages and conditions have been referred to, we have always been referred to the Maritime Board, and it is on that point that I want to say a word or two. It is intended that it should be representative of all interests, but on the officers' side it is not well represented. There is representation of an organisation that has about 3,000 members, but the Officers' Federation, which numbers no fewer than 12,000 members, is not represented thereon, and if the right hon. Gentleman is going to rely on the Maritime Board as being really a reprseentative body, bringing in all the interests concerned, he cannot do it by Statute or by anything but influence and moral persuasion, and I ask him to see that that particular organisation should be represented on that board in order that the board should be thoroughly representative.

10.29 p.m.

Mr. LOGAN: I am concerned with the question of men on deck and below deck. Although the Board of Trade insist on proper deck manning, there is no corresponding power with respect to manning below deck. I make no imputations that I have not been able to verify. I make no imputations against any shipowner except to say that, as far as conditions are concerned in exceptional cases, there is a fault to find. I know the Mersey well. I have worked on the river and in its ships. I have taken tramp steamers from Langton Dock to Brunswick Dock and over to Birkenhead to the coal pits. I have been on the river night and day for nine months and I know all the tides. I now represent one of the most congested shipping areas in the country. We make a complaint here
that a protection is not inserted in regard to manning. I am going to take two cases in point. I am going to call attention to an hon. Member who is facing me in regard to two of his ships, namely, the "Saxilby" and the "Millpool".
It is very unfortunate that no explanation can be given for the loss of either of those boats. I do not impute anything, for I have no proof and I cannot say anything in regard to the hon. Gentleman, but he spoke in the Debate when we raised the question of bad conditions. What explanation can the hon. Member and his firm give that two of his boats were total losses with all the crew in a period of nine months? What explanation can he give of that peculiar coincidence? A boat which is considered to be satisfactory sails out of port with a crew, and all are lost. I received a letter written by a widow of one of the men thanking me for raising the matter in the House of Commons. The "Millpool," a very able ship I am told, a trustworthy and most reliable ship, goes out, and she is lost nine months afterwards with the total loss of everybody on board, with the exception of one, I believe, who left the ship and who I have been unable to trace during the week. When I inquire into the loss of the "Millpool"——

The CHAIRMAN: This hardly seems to me to be the time to raise a serious question of this sort. At the moment I cannot see that the hon. Member has brought it into any relevancy to the Amendment before the Committee.

Mr. LOGAN: I am willing to abide by your Ruling, but may I point out that I was contrasting the statements made on the question of manning, and I was making particular reference to manning on deck and below? I want it to be understood that I am not making any imputation in regard to anything being wrong about these boats. I am stating an absolute fact, that two such vessels were lost.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is quoting these cases as examples of vessels not having been fully and sufficiently manned. It may be that up to a certain point he is in order, but I do not
think that he is in order to discuss the loss of a ship in details which go beyond the question which is really the issue on this particular Amendment. This is hardly an occasion for advocating an inquiry into the loss of a particular ship.

Mr. LOGAN: To put myself in order it may be, or it may not be, that those ships were properly manned—that is for the purpose of my argument; and if that is so, then I think we are perfectly justified, knowing that there has been a loss of life, and to prevent anything of the kind happening in future, in asking the President of the Board of Trade to accept our Amendment. I deal with the Amendment from the point of view of life. I am not concerned one tinker's toss of a button whether a shipowner makes money or loses it. I am concerned with the widows and children who may be left behind and who have to be provided for by the guardians or from charity; and it is because I sincerely feel that justice can be done by the President of the Board of Trade accepting this Amendment that I stand up in the British House of Commons to ask for it to be accepted. It is a fair Amendment. It is an Amendment for the men who go down to the sea in ships. It is they who make the demand, and I think I am justified in asking the Minister to say that no subsidy shall be granted unless these ships are in a worthy condition.

10.37 p.m.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: We have had what I venture to say are two very unfortunate examples of the kind of discussion which does not enlighten debate. The personal controversies of hon. Members and the accusations which are made, with or without foundation, are matters which one can only hear with the greatest possible regret, and I think the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. Logan) has not done very good service to the better governance of the mercantile marine by making what appeared to be a charge that someone was gravely at fault in the case of the "Millpool" and the other vessel he mentioned.

Mr. LOGAN: The right hon. Gentleman must not do me an injustice. He has enough common sense to know that that was not so. If he remembers what I said it was this: that to put myself in order I had to make an imputation.
Otherwise, I should have been ruled out by the Chair.

The CHAIRMAN: I must ask the hon. Member not to endeavour to put upon Rulings from the Chair explanations which are quite unjustified.

Mr. LOGAN: With all due respect, Sir Dennis, I distinctly stated, when you gave your Ruling, that to put myself in order with the House I would use the expression "may be," and I did so.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member's explanation as to what he did to put himself in order has nothing to do with what I said.

Mr. LOGAN: I am not going to have an imputation put into my mouth by the President of the Board of Trade when I did not make it.

The CHAIRMAN: Order!

Mr. LOGAN: I am defending myself.

HON. MEMBERS: Order!

Mr. LOGAN: I am going to defend myself. What do you take me for?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: It is no doubt as well that the Committee should turn its attention to the Amendment before it, and may I point out what it is that it really demands? It seeks to prevent the operation of this Bill unless the Board are satisfied that
The wages paid to persons employed on the vessel during such tramp voyage were in accordance With the rates recognised by the National Maritime Board.
Let me take that first section of the Amendment first. I wonder if the Committee really knows what happens when a crew is signed on. I am sure that hon. Members will be surprised to hear, especially after some of the speeches to which we have listened in this Debate, that in the signing on of the crews and the methods which are adopted there is a remarkable amount of harmony. I go further and say that there is not one industry in this country which has been so free from labour disputes as the shipping industry in the last 20 years. I put that down entirely to the working of the National Maritime Board, and I am sure I may express our great gratitude to those who are on both sides of the Board table and who have done so much to make it possible for us to face
this extremely difficult and troublous time, and to secure justice to the men.
An hon. Member on this side of the House asked a question with regard to officers' representation on the National Maritime Board. I find that the very subject that he raised is now under the consideration of the board. The board are a voluntary and not a statutory body, and invitations to attend the board are arranged for on a representative basis. I think it will be possible for that very large section of the Mercantile Marine to be represented on the board, and if that is so, it will be found that the board really covers in the main those who are employed in our merchant ships.
I was saying that it might be as well if the House realised what happens in the ordinary signing on of a crew. Some hon. Members may not know that the crew of a ship are signed on by the master and not by the shipowner, but the master obviously acts under instructions. I have here a very typical set of instructions to the master and they are as follows:
We expect you and your chief engineer to ship a British crew whenever this is practicable and to give suitable British men preference at all times over those of other nationalities.
[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I am sure that the House will agree that that is a good start. At all events it clears away one point which has been made, as to the unwillingness of shipowners to ship an entirely British crew. That was a figment of somebody's imagination. This document goes on:
In signing on always sign on…through the National Maritime Board. Obtain and fill up the requisition form which they issue and hand it to the Shipping Federation Board consultant, or the Shipping Federation Board registered office at the port of engagement, giving as long notice as possible.
There the Shipping Federation comes in on one side of the table.
The Federation will then arrange with the Union"—
that is to say, the Seamen's Union—
and with others in a similar position to have suitable men at the Federation Office from whom ships' officers will select the crew. Men should produce their P.C. 5 cards stamped by the Federation and by the Union at the time of selection and signing on.
I wonder how many industries there are in this country where there is such complete
collaboration between employers and employed. That is the ordinary process going on six days a week in all the ports around our coast. Let us go a bit further:
If you have provisionally engaged any members of your previous crew"—
that is to say, kept them on from a previous voyage—
enter their names on the requisition form and send them to the offices of the Seamen's Union"—
the Seamen's Union have more than a finger in this pie—
to receive their P.C. 5 cards with which their engagement should be ratified"—
and so on. Those are the instructions which are carried out in the case of all well-conducted firms.
I noticed in the course of the Debate a tendency in some quarters to speak of tramp ships as though they were a sort of inferior article. Far from it. The vast majority of them have been more or less recently built, and most of them have been built since the beginning of the War. Their accommodation is in many cases almost luxurious, and in the average ship it is certainly quite comfortable—a good deal better than much accommodation ashore with which hon. Members are satisfied. These vessels are, on the whole, large vessels, up to 12,000 or 14,000 tons. They have a very large margin of freeboard, they are full-powered, admirably manned, and well fed. They are called "tramps" because they do not run on a regular route, according to a time-table, like a train or an omnibus. They may go anywhere. The hon. Member for Consett gave an instance of the way in which they travel all over the world, in the most unexpected directions. That is why they are called "tramps." I think it is scarcely fair to such an admirable section of the British Mercantile Marine that, because they are called "tramps," it should be supposed that they are a sort of inferior article, that their men do not get fair play, that their food, as was said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood), is hot in hot climates and cold in cold climates. That is the sort of description of the way in which these ships are run which excites the amusement of those who sail them, and the disgust of those who
believe that the Parliament of a great maritime Power ought to be better informed.
What is the actual question before us? Is it the question whether our men are properly paid or not? If that be the question, I say they are better paid now than they have been at any previous time, that they have, during very nearly a generation, got their secured customs which no shipowner wishes to disturb; and I venture to say that such progress has been made in that direction that we should be very slow to disturb these voluntary arrangements which are working so well.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: The engineers agreed to a 10 per cent. reduction in 1931. How, therefore, can the right hon. Gentleman say that they are better paid to-day than they were before that?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: There has, of course, been a reduction during the time of the depression, and that has been done by arrangement. How much better is that than the one-sided conditions which have given rise to so many labour disputes. It is because there have been arrangements like that that for 20 years there has not been a single instance of a strike between the seamen, firemen, engineers and officers of the Mercantile Marine and their employers. There was one very serious dispute in which they were concerned—the General Strike; and what happened in the General Strike? They refused to come out, because their voluntary arrangements were working so well. If the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Paling) wishes to interrupt——

Mr. PALING: It was not an interruption. Do not be so nervous.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: If the hon. Member wishes to interrupt, let him do so in an orderly manner.

Mr. PALING: It is true that on a previous occasion I interrupted, and the right hon. Gentleman was very angry. I apologise. But just now I was merely talking to one of my hon. Friends, as I have often seen the right hon. Gentleman do. I would ask him not to be so nervous, but to get on with the business.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: What we wish to do is to make sure that the men who serve in our ships shall be fairly treated. How
is that to be attained? I believe it is to be attained, not by the action of the House of Commons, but purely by collaboration in the industry outside the House. Once we start interfering in these matters by Statute, it does not stop merely with this interference; there might be a reaction, a rebound. I have noticed that some of the greatest industries in this country are very shy of allowing Parliament to decide whether their wages shall be subject to statutory conditions, and how shy they are about compulsory arbitration. The shipping industry is so much better off in its relations between employers and employed that we should be rash to disturb that condition of things.
How are we to make sure that these arrangements, which have been arrived at after very full consultation and discussion, will be applied all round? It is suggested that a shipowner who does not pay the Maritime Board's rates of wages should be refused any subsidy. Let it be remembered, however, that the subsidy will only be granted on the advice of the Committee. The initiative will not come from the Board of Trade, but from the Advisory Committee. That committee, in accordance with the instructions contained in the White Paper, which have been circulated to, and I hope digested by, hon. Members, will do their best to prevent shipowners from going into the freight markets in such a way that the level of freights, which we wish to raise, will be depressed. The principle which they will comply with and which we shall expect them to comply with is that they shall not recommend the payment of subsidy to ships whose owners have not complied with the National Maritime Board scale. There is no need to have this inserted. The better way to work it is to do it through that advisory committee. That committee will see to it that there is no blacklegging in wages any more than there is black-legging in freights. The hon. Member would prefer to put it in the Statute. I prefer it to be kept out of the Statute. He thinks that if it is put in it will assure the scale of wages. I say that the arrangement at present working has produced a higher level and has maintained that higher level. I do not wish to see it disturbed. I venture to suggest that the method we recommend, through the
committee, is better than the method he recommends.
I come now to the second section of this Amendment. It refers to the conditions of employment on board vessels. I do not know whether my hon. Friend referred to conditions of employment or to sanitary and hygienic conditions, but from what I gathered he referred to the latter. Let me point out to the House exactly how these problems are dealt with. The Board of Trade is charged with the duty under the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, which was amended at a later date, of seeing that the condition of the forecastles and the sanitary equipment of the ship are fit and proper for those who sail in the ship. If a ship is under construction, almost every rivet that is put into it is under the control and supervision of the Board of Trade surveyor. So far as the construction of ships is concerned there is no doubt that we have reached a higher standard of construction and provided a greater degree of comfort than at any previous time. That is the ordinary everyday duty of the Board of Trade. As the Parliamentary Secretary pointed out, this has not been begun merely when we brought this Bill before the House or when a point arose with regard to wages to be discussed before the National Maritime Board. This is a duty which must be performed every day of the week by the representatives of the Board of Trade. We have a very efficient set of surveyors and I am confident that they look after the conditions under which our men are employed with the greatest care, and that their standards year by year improve.
As to the health of the men employed in the Mercantile Marine, there can be no doubt that there has been continuous improvement during the past 30 or 35 years. I can remember when I was very young in shipping affairs finding many vessels which used to come under the censure of the Port sanitary authority. Unfortunately, in those days, that was very common. But I have not heard of a single case during the past three years that needed to be reported to me as President of the Board of Trade. That is an improvement for which we ought to be grateful—and it has not been obtained by tacking on provisions to Bills to which they were quite irrelevant, but by a
continuous improvement of administration. I beg the Committee to realise that there are two ways of doing this. One is by the way of administration and one is by way of Statute. If you do it by Statute you still require officials to supervise, but if you do it without Statute, under the general powers of the Merchant Shipping Act, that is the best way of doing it. Hon. Members opposite prefer to do it on this occasion—though not always—by Statute. I prefer to carry on the duties of the Board of Trade under authority already given to us, and for that purpose the authority is ample and sufficient.
I do not know whether, in speaking of the conditions of employment, the hon. Member included the food given on board ship, but reference was made to food supplies by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenweed). The instruction under that heading reads:
The crew must be properly fed. We bargain for the best of everything and we insist that there should be no cause for legitimate complaint on the part of the men. The owners cannot do more than that. With this in view, you will take particular care in selecting your steward and cook and giving proper supervision to your catering department at all times. It is possible to be economical without being in the least mean and much may be done by care and forethought. Order your stores carefully and not as a matter of mere routine. Consider the probable employment of your ship, the climatic conditions and the opportunities of obtaining good provisions cheaply in foreign ports which you may visit. Conversely, avoid having to buy stores where they are dear and bear in mind your vessel's capacity for holding perishable stores.
After what we have heard on the subject of food, to read this out is quite refreshing. The instructions, which are obeyed by our officers, our captains and our stewards, are there set out. There has not been a single case that has been challenged in the last 10 years in the whole mercantile marine. The food scale is fixed by Act of Parliament. They have had to vary and give elasticity to the scale from time to time. Certainly in foreign countries where it is possible to get fresh food the more fresh food they get and the more they get rid of tinned and preserved the better. They have to pass through very trying climates, and elasticity is all to the good. That is an example of the way it is worked now,
and I beg the Committee not to imagine that things are as bad as has been made out. The truth is that by these means, by the administration of the Board of Trade Marine Department, one of the best Departments in the State, by the work of their surveyors, the most skilful men who can be obtained for the purpose, by the National Maritime Board, which was brought into existence on a voluntary basis and has worked on a voluntary basis to the total exclusion of strikes and finally by the good sense of those who want to make their men comfortable—that combination of circumstances is far better than attempting to do these things by Statute. In these circumstances I ask the Committee to pass the Bill as it stands, and not to accept the Amendment.

10.59 p.m.

Sir STAFFORD CRIPPS: The right hon. Gentleman has really put up a most extraordinary argument with regard to these safeguards. He first of all says he does not consider safeguards as desirable attached to legislation. Does he realise that the condition of the mercantile marine to-day depends upon statutory safeguards which have been enacted by the House? Everyone will admit that had it not been for these Statutory safeguards and their administration by the Board of Trade, they would have been infinitely worse. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that it is rather a bad basis for an argument to say that statutory safeguards are undesirable. He gives away his entire case by relying on his own Department. No one is accusing the Board of Trade of not carrying out the duties which they have to perform. As to new ships, no doubt the surveyors make the surveys as regards the quarters for the crew, but that does not apply to old ships.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am sure the hon. and learned Gentleman does not want to misrepresent me. They can go to any part of the ship they think necessary.

Sir S. CRIPPS: They cannot reconstruct the old ship. They have to go through it, but they cannot reconstruct it. The quarters are those which were constructed many years ago. The right hon. Gentleman said that they were improving. Of course, they are improving in modern ships, but the old ships are still
afloat and people have still to go into those ships. However good a surveyor you may have, he cannot alter the structure of the ship. All he can see is whether the structure of the ship is giving the best accommodation within the structure.
The right hon. Gentleman says that the question of the State regulation of wages is a, very awkward one. No one has suggested the State regulation of wages. If he had read the Amendment he would have seen that precisely the opposite thing was suggested, that wages planned by the National Maritime Board should be accepted and not that wages fixed by the State should be made the rule in this industry. The right hon. Gentleman claims a sort of Elysium and makes one wonder why we are not spending all our time before the mast. It savours of good health, fine food and all the rest of it. It makes my mouth water.

Mr. DICKIE: It would do some of you a world of good.

Sir S. CRIPPS: Yes, it would do me a lot of good, but, unfortunately, I have an interior which suffers when it goes on the sea, and perhaps that might counteract some of the pleasures. Does the hon. Gentleman opposite want to make an interruption?

Mr. G. BRAITHWAITE: I said that I think the hon. and learned Gentleman's interior also suffered when he went into office.

Sir S. CRIPPS: That seems to be a cheap and rather poor gibe, and rather worthy of the hon. Member. Let me turn to wages. It is not a question of laying down some Statute by which to regulate the tramp shipping. The question is, if you are to give a subsidy to tramp shipping, are you going to see that all the ships you subsidise have the higher standard which you say the majority of them have? Are you going to allow ships to benefit by this subsidy which do not have that higher standard? The right hon. Gentleman is not prepared, as I understand it, when this House is voting money, to put in the very meagre protection asked for for the wage-earner. Precisely the same thing happened in all the agricultural schemes. Doles were handed out—the right hon. Gentleman opposite points to my right hon. Friend
here. He knows perfectly well that no marketing scheme was introduced under his regime at all. These schemes have been introduced solely by the Government of the right hon. Gentleman. He knows that we have pressed for the protection of the wage-earner on every occasion when Government money has been handed out to any industry, and that it is the right of the wage-earner as part of the policy. If all these regulations are so easy to comply with and so simple, why is it that in this case there is an objection to making them a condition for the grant of Government money? The right hon. Gentleman does not suggest, and cannot suggest, that there are no tramp ships in which these conditions are not carried out. He says that in the great majority they are. Then that will not interfere with his scheme at all, but in the ships where they are not carried out to-day, they will be a real protection and will help the right hon. Gentleman to get that higher standard which he wants, because ships that do not comply with the conditions will be automatically ruled out of the subsidy. No greater inducement could be offered to the right hon. Gentleman to help to raise all the ships to the high standard which he says exists in many of them to-day. Unless he can assure the House that there is not a single ship in which there is a danger of these conditions not being complied with, then we say that he has no right whatever to refuse this protection, which cannot interfere, on his own statement, with anything, and that when the nation as a whole is giving a subsidy to a particular industry, it is the right of the workers in that industry just as much as the owners, to get the protection of this House. We shall therefore certainly vote in favour of the Amendment.

11.7 p.m.

Colonel ROPNER: I am extremely sorry to delay the House at this hour and to make a speech after the speeches from the two Front Benches. I had intended to say something about the maintenance of wages which might have pleased my hon. Friends opposite rather more than some of my friends in the shipping industry; but at this hour, and because of some of the speeches which have been made on this Amendment, I would ask the permission of the House to deal only with the question of the
conditions covered by paragraphs (b) and (c) of the Amendment. I would like to refer once again—I referred to it in an interruption—to the speech of the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood). The other day he came to the House and made some very wild charges against shipowners, and against one particular firm. To-day in a very generous manner he admitted that some of the statements that he had made were entirely wrong, and he apologised to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Portsmouth, South (Sir H. Cayzer). But he went on to make further wild statements against shipowners, and once again he made specific charges. When contradicted by my hon. and gallant Friend he hid his head behind letters and admitted that he had no personal knowledge of the facts which he was discussing. He could only say that he had received letters referring to these matters. I think those hon. Members who were in the House at the time the hon. Member made his speech will have made up their minds how much importance to attach to the allegations which he made against shipowners.
I should like also to refer to the speech of the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. Logan). The most contemptible way of calling a man a fool is to say: "I do not insinuate that you are necessarily a fool." Everybody knows that when you make a remark of that sort, you are really insinuating that the man is a fool. The hon. Member for the Scotland Division in talking about the loss of two ships owned by my firm said that he made no allegations against the firm, and that he did not know—and as far as I can discover he had made no efforts to find out—whether those ships were properly manned or not. It seems to me extraordinarily odd to come to the House of Commons and make a speech which the whole House has interpreted as being a charge against the firm in question, and then to say, "In point of fact, I have made no definite statement or charge."

11.10 p.m.

Mr. LOGAN: I made no imputation against the hon. and gallant Member or his firm. I cited two cases, unfortunately both ships belonging to his firm, and I made the definite statement that I was
not able to get any proof in regard to their not being properly manned, except tthat the two ships became a total loss within nine months. If that could happen in connection with the hon. and gallant Member's ships then I placed my contrast with regard to other ships.

The CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member specifically states that he makes no allegation of these losses resulting from their being otherwise than efficiently manned it shows quite clearly that the whole thing is entirely irrelevant.

Mr. LOGAN: I also said that having ruled me out of order it was relevant for the purposes of illustration to use the words "may or may not be."

The CHAIRMAN: That does not alter the fact.

Mr. LOGAN: But it puts me in order.

11.12 p.m.

Colonel ROPNER: I am glad to have your Ruling, Mr. Chairman. I hope the Committee will now allow me to deal with statements which have been made in the Debate and which have received great publicity. The newspapers in several East Coast towns have had headlines referring to the speeches which have been made, and it is important that the Committee should have the facts.

Mr. LOGAN: If it will ease the mind of the hon. and gallant Member I will give him my word that there is no accusation. I have no proof of anything against the hon. and gallant Member, and I do not impute anything.

Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: What did the hon. Member intend to infer?

The CHAIRMAN: I think the fewer hon. Members interrupt the better.

Colonel ROPNER: I am glad to have that statement from the hon. Member. The right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) also made some wild accusations against all shipowners and once again referred to the loss of the "Millpool." He said:
Whosoever sent that ship to sea should be severely dealt with.
I doubt whether the right hon. Gentleman has the slightest idea of what he is talking about when he speaks of the shipping industry. I very much doubt
whether he has ever been on a tramp ship, at any rate for any length of time, or knows even the difference between the blunt and sharp end of a ship. I suppose, that as usual, he was arguing from a brief in which he was given certain statements and made the best use he could of them. He referred to the loss of the "Millpool." I have a letter here, and I should like to read the first five lines. The letter comes from an ex-captain of the "Millpool." It was written on 5th October, a, long time before these Debates were thought of, and was entirely unsolicited. It as interesting to note from the notepaper that this ex-captain was sufficiently fond of the firm he had served as to call his house after one of the ships of the company. He says:
I do not know how to express myself about the missing 'Millpool.' I do not give up hope yet. I was master of her for four years, as you know, until I left her to become a pilot. I went through many heavy winter Atlantic storms and a finer sea ship never floated.
That is the statement of a fine ex-officer, who commanded the "Millpool"

for four years. I should have liked to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield, had he been in his place, whether he has ever heard of Lloyd's Register of Shipping. Shipowners are subject to the direct orders of a much more powerful organisation than any shipowning firm. In the construction of their ships, and in the maintenance of their ships, they have to obey, and to obey implicitly, Lloyd's. The "Millpool" and the "Saxilby," which were unfortunately lost at sea, were classed Al at Lloyd's, and that is the highest compliment you can pay to any ship. I am very sorry indeed to detain the House about this somewhat personal matter, but I thought it was due not only to my own firm but to the whole shipping industry to refute the outrageous; and irresponsible allegations made by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 30; Noes, 125.

Division No. 32.]
AYES.
[11.17 p.m.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Dobbie, William
Logan, David Gilbert


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Gardner, Benjamin Walter
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)


Attlee, Clement Richard
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
McEntee, Valentine L.


Banfield, John William
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)


Batey, Joseph
Grundy, Thomas W.
Milner, Major James


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
John, William
Parkinson, John Allen


Buchanan, George
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Tinker, John Joseph


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
West, F. R.


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Kirkwood, David



Daggar, George
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Lawson, John James
Mr. Paling and Mr. D. Graham.


NOES.


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Home, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Colonel Charles
Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Horobin, Ian M.


Albery, Irving James
Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)
Clayton, Sir Christopher
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Hume, Sir George Hopwood


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Cooke, Douglas
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Copeland, Ida
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)


Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Kerr, Hamilton W.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Cross, R. H.
Latham, Sir Herbert Paul


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)


Blinded, James
Dickie, John P.
Leech, Dr. J. W.


Bossom, A. C.
Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Bower, Commander Robert Tatton
Elmley, Viscount
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Levy, Thomas


Braithwaite, Maj. A. N. (Yorks, E. R.)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Llewellin, Major John J.


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)


Broadbent, Colonel John
Gower, Sir Robert
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Grimston, R. V.
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Gritten, W. G. Howard
McKie, John Hamilton


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest


Burghley, Lord
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Guy, J. C. Morrison
Marsden, Commander Arthur


Burnett, John George
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Martin, Thomas B.


Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John


Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)
Harbord, Arthur
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale


Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenn'gt'n)
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres


Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Rosbotham, Sir Thomas
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Sutcliffe, Harold


Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A. (P'dd'gt'n, S.)


O'Donovan, Dr. William James
Skelton, Archibald Noel
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Orr Ewing, I. L.
Slater, John
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Palmer, Francis Noel
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Patrick, Colin M.
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Pearson, William G.
Smith, Sir J. Walker- (Barrow-in-F.)
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Penny, Sir George
Smithers, Sir Waldron
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)
Somervell, Sir Donald
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Procter, Major Henry Adam
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)


Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Stones, James



Rea, Walter Russell
Stourton, Hon. John J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Strauss, Edward A.
Captain Sir George Bowyer and


Remer, John R.
Strickland, Captain W. F.
 Sir Walter Womersley

11.25 p.m.

Dr. ADDISON: I beg to move, in page 2, line 35, at the end, to insert:
(4) No subsidy under this Part of the Act shall be paid by the Board of Trade unless the Board are satisfied that during such tramp voyage a reasonable proportion of the crew were British domociled seamen.
In view of the statement of the President of the Board of Trade in reply to the last amendment, I gather that we have his good wishes, but that he is unwilling to do anything to implement them. It seems a very reasonable request that when the nation is asked to give £2,000,000 to help a particular branch of the shipping industry, we should require that the Board of Trade should be satisfied that during such a tramp voyage a reasonable proportion of the crew should be domiciled British seamen. It is not much to ask, but I expect we shall be referred to the great difficulties of finding out whether they are or are not domiciled, what the proportion should be, and all manner of other difficulties. As a matter of fact, they will leave us all completely cold. The President may give us a charming picture of what happens on these ships, of their all being happy and all born Britishers, but if that be so, what is the trouble about accepting the Amendment? We are well aware that you would not have to hunt very far in the ports of the United Kingdom to find ships under the British flag not carrying a reasonable proportion of domiciled British seamen, and all that we ask is that a condition of the granting of a subsidy should be that we should secure that on all these ships there should be a reasonable proportion of our own fellow-countrymen who belong to the mercantile marine.

11.28 p.m.

Mr. WEST: I understand from previous figures given that there are over 40,000 coloured seamen employed on British boats, most of whom are Lascars and
Chinese, at the same time as roughly, I think, 50,000 sailors are unemployed. I think the Parliamentary Secretary gave as a sort of extenuating circumstance the fact that the numbers of foreigners employed were declining. I think he said that some few years ago they were 8 per cent. of the total and that in 1933 they were only 5 per cent. That might be more convincing a figure if we knew how the British total of sailors had declined in the same period, and if the number of British sailors has gone down by 20 per cent. since 1929, the argument that coloured seamen have gone down from 8 to 5 per cent. loses its strength. At any rate, when there are nearly 50,000 sailors out of work, it is extraordinary that there should be so many coloured seamen employed.
The hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary seemed to think that for Labour Members to object to the employment of these coloured seamen was contrary to our professions as to the brotherhood of man, as he termed it, but we have tried to point out that it is not a question of the brotherhood of man. We believe it to be true that the main reason why these 40,000 Lascars are employed is that they are so very much cheaper than British sailors. I do not know the exact figures, but I believe it is true to say that it costs three times more to employ a British sailor than it does to employ a coloured seaman. If that be true, the fact that they are so much cheaper is the real reason for their employment. I cannot understand why there should be any objection to giving coloured seamen the same wages as British sailors if they are as efficient.
One reason, perhaps, why so many British seamen are unemployed is that so many ships have recently been transferred to foreign flags. Some 2,000,000 tons of shipping have been
transferred in the last three or four years to the Greek and Italian flags because under those flags they can employ foreign sailors at much lower rates than under the British flag. Hon. Members opposite profess to be as keen as we are in giving employment to British people. One of their chief arguments for tariffs is not that they want to help their friends, the vested interests, but that they want to give employment to British men and women. Why do they not extend that principle here? They have a first class opportunity of putting their principle into practice by saying that wherever possible tramp ships shall employ British sailors at British rates of pay. I therefore expect hon. Members opposite, who are so patriotic and so keen on Britishers coming first in all the things that count, to put their principles into practice by voting for the Amendment.

11.32 p.m.

Mr. MARTIN: May I ask the mover of the Amendment what he considers "a reasonable number of the crew"? If 40,000 coloured seamen are employed and 50,000 British seamen are unemployed, the hon. Member ought to argue that no number of coloured seamen would be reasonable, but that only when all the British seamen had been employed could he allow any coloured seamen to be employed. The Amendment should therefore be that only British domiciled seamen should ever be employed in British ships.

11.33 p.m.

Mr. DICKIE: I should not have intervened but for the speech of the hon. Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. West). I observed in the discussion on the previous Amendment that I have served with both white and Lascar crews. Several reasons why Lascars are employed have been given by the President of the Board of Trade. It is purely a question of climate.

Mr. WEST: Oh!

Mr. DICKIE: The hon. Member was speaking from a brief and knows nothing about it. I am speaking from knowledge and experience.

Dr. ADDISON: The hon. Member has his name down to an Amendment on almost identical terms. Why, then, is he opposing this Amendment?

Mr. DICKIE: That Amendment refers to seamen of British nationality, which includes Lascars. There is a colony of them in South Shields and they are British subjects. Anybody who has been east of the Suez Canal, whether in the Red Sea, the Persian Gulf, Malaya, the Indian Ocean or Northern Australia, knows that there is certain work which white men were never intended by nature to do and which they should never be expected under tropical conditions to undertake. Included in that is the work of marine transport. It is bad enough on deck, but it is infinitely worse down below. It is bad enough when the stoking is done automatically or when the boilers are oil fired, but when it is a case of firing a marine boiler with coal by hand, as I have done, and as I have seen it done, in a temperature of 110 or 120 degrees, no one who knows anything about it would suggest for a moment that that is work which a white man ought to undertake.

Mr. WEST: Can the hon. Member explain why it is that the Orient Line, whose ships go to the tropics, do not employ Lascars?

Mr. DICKIE: If the right hon. Member knew a little bit more about shipping he would not ask such a foolish question. The conditions on a 20,000 ton Orient liner are totally different from those in a tramp steamer. I say that an ounce of my practical experience is worth a pound of the theories we have heard so much about from the other side. I have helped to pull white men out of the engine room and stokehold when they have been in a state of collapse through doing hard manual labour for which Nature never intended them or equipped them.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: What about the British Navy now?

Mr. DICKIE: The hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) has a great capacity for speaking but very little capacity for listening.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: It is more than I can listen to—to be told that at any kind of job, even trimming in the stokehold, a Lascar can defeat a British trimmer or a British fireman, or ever could, because it is not true. The British Navy is the outstanding proof of what I say. It
defeats all the other Navies on earth and it is not manned by Lascars.

Mr. DICKIE: I am very glad that the hon. Member has brought me back to the point made by the hon. Member for North Hammersmith. The number of Lascars who have to be employed on this work on tramp steamers is very large—greater that the number of British who would be required on a vessel of the same size. Therefore, it is of no financial advantage to a shipowner to employ black men instead of white in tropical climates. I have stood at the rail of a tramp steamer and seen white men launched on their last long voyage—committed to the deep with a couple of fire bars at their feet. They were the unhappy victims of working under conditions for which Nature never intended them and did not fit them. The position is put before the House by the President of the Board of Trade on 14th December he said:
When Lascars are employed they are employed in places where to substitute white labour for Lascar labour would be an expenditure of human life as well as of human health."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th December, 1934; col. 784, Vol. 296.]
From actual experience I know that to be the case. Lascars are employed in special jobs for which British labour is not suitable. Anyone who knows anything about the other side of the Suez Canal knows that that is so. Nothing is to be gained by refusing to recognise this remarkable fact; all that matters is that when these conditions are being considered and when subsidies are being given, there shall be a stipulation that coloured sailors shall at least be drawn from within the British Empire, and not from outside.

11.41 p.m.

Mr. McENTEE: We have just listened to an interesting speech, but I suggest that it had nothing to do with the Amendment, which does not bar a British-born lascar or coloured man from serving. The hon. Member is not the only one in the House who has seen the things of which he spoke; I have not only seen them but experienced them, and I disagree with him fundamentally. The Amendment says "reasonable proportion of British-born seamen."

Mr. DICKIE: British domiciled.

Mr. McENTEE: Well, British domiciled, then. I do not think that the Minister would argue, or that any other hon. Member dare argue, that tramp ships on the seas to-day whose owners may get this subsidy, and no doubt will apply for it, are manned entirely by foreign seamen. The party opposite are always protesting their desire to employ British seamen and it is not unreasonable to ask them to agree with this Amendment. I expect the Minister will be as utterly unreasonable on this Amendment as on others, but British seamen who are out of work—50,000, or whatever the number is—will note the result of hon. Members protestations when put to the test. The Parliamentary Secretary admitted that certain ships are not complying with the conditions mentioned in the pamphlet, or whatever it was, read by the President of the Board of Trade, and that are observed by the best firms. It is reasonable to suggest that such firms should not get the privileges accorded to those who employ British labour and give good conditions.

11.44 p.m.

Lord APSLEY: I am glad this Amendment has been moved, because it ma help to get us out of a difficulty. The Bill was promoted, I understand, to help British ships; this is a considerable advance. We have not heard much about the British ship before. The stress has been laid on the international function of our shipping trade. This Amendment may help us to know what a British ship is. I must confess that I have always found considerable difficulty in knowing what a British ship might be.
In a later Clause a British ship is defined as one registered at a port in Great Britain, and again, later, as one constructed in Great Britain. What is to prevent a foreign firm from registering its ships in Great Britain and manning them with foreigners, or even with British seamen? What is to prevent, say, an American firm buying an old British ship, manning it with Finns, registering it in Great Britain, and flying the Red Ensign? It is almost impossible to say what is a British ship and what is not, and I believe that that is why the fluctuations in the numbers of British-owned and foreign-owned ships are so considerable. When we went off the Gold Standard, an amazing number of ships which had been
flying the Dutch, French, Greek and other flags suddenly became British ships once more. This Amendment is going to help us, because at any rate we shall know that the ships are manned by British seamen.
I cannot agree with the hon. Member for Consett (Mr. Dickie) that Lascars and Chinese are only used for climatic reasons. Eight years ago I was in the Far East on a ship of the Blue Funnel Line, which prided itself on manning with British seamen. The summer before last I went on a Baltic cruise in a ship of the same line, and it was manned entirely by Chinese. It cannot be pretended that that alteration was caused by climatic reasons. Here we are definitely out to assist British ships, and I submit that the fact that a ship is built in Great Britain and registered in a British port, or even that a number of its shareholders or directors are British, does not make it a British ship. But the fact that it is built in this country, combined with the fact that it is manned, as the Amendment says, by at any rate a proportion of British seamen, is of importance, and I humbly suggest that the Parliamentary Secretary should either accept the Amendment or give assurances that the Board of Trade will give it favourable consideration.

11.47 p.m.

Dr. BURGIN: I begin by assuring the hon. Member for Central Bristol (Lord Apsley) that there is no difficulty whatever in defining a British ship. It is a vessel registered in a British port, and belonging either to a British subject or to a company whose principal place of business is in the United Kingdom or the British Dominions. It would not be possible to deal, in answer to this Amendment, with the whole question of policy as to what should or should not come on to the British register, but the Committee may rest assured that there are substantial advantages to this country in the policy of easy access to the British register which has been adopted for many years. It is the desire of everyone that as many British seamen as possible should be employed in the tramp shipping industry. That is the desire of the Government, it is the policy of the Board of Trade, and it is the policy of the tramp-owners. The proof is that the number of aliens employed in
British ships has been steadily declining, both in the aggregate and in percentage.

Mr. WEST: And of British men, too.

Dr. BURGIN: The President of the Board of Trade read out the model directions from owners to masters in selecting crews, and the Committee will remember that they were:
We expect you and your chief engineer to ship a British crew whenever it is practicable, and to give suitable British men preference at all times over those of other nationalities.
Those are sample directions which represent the practice in the shipping industry.
This Amendment speaks of British domiciled seamen. The expression is not an apt one, and has no accurate meaning, because nationality and domicile are distinct conceptions. The real misconception underlying many of the speeches in favour of the Amendment has been in seeking to make a differentiation between a coloured British subject and a white British subject, and between a British subject whose domicile is somewhere outside the United Kingdom and a British subject domiciled within the United Kingdom. No such differentiation is possible. A man either is a British subject or is not a British subject. The question of domicile does not and cannot come into the matter at all. It is a question of law and fact linking a person to a place, and has nothing whatever to do with nationality, while nationality is as regardless of domicile as domicile is regardless of nationality, There are stringent rules against the employment of aliens on British ships. The matter is governed by the Aliens Restriction Amendment Act, 1919, Section 5. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) referred to the Arab born in Aden, the Chinaman born in Hong Kong and the Lascar born in Calcutta.
No alien shall be employed in any capacity on board a British ship registered in the United Kingdom unless he produces to the officer before whom he is engaged satisfactory proof of his nationality
and any person who engages an alien for employment on a British ship in contravention of the provisions of that Section is guilty of an offence under the Act. British officers do not lightly undertake their task of administering the Aliens Restriction Amendment Act. They regard it as a very serious part of their
duty and, if an Arab is engaged because he was born in Aden, he is a British subject as much as any Member of this House.

Mr. WEST: And a cheaper one.

Dr. BURGIN: If the hon. Member will consider a little closer the question of the employment of coloured and white British subjects he will find that there may be a different rate for a different grade or rating but he will not find that one Arab and one white man do the same work. He will find that his suggested equation and wage does not work out in the way he expects.
The Amendment speaks of a reasonable proportion. How is the owner of a tramp vessel to know the destination of his ship? What is reasonable for one voyage may be quite impossible or impracticable for another. When the vessel sails, how is anyone to know just where the tramp, in the real sense of the word, may be going? Who is going to define this reasonable proportion? What is the sanction if it is not observed? Is the shipowner who is applying for the subsidy and may want it to enable him to make a voyage and to oust a foreign vessel, to have a doubt as to whether the percentage of British seamen is or is not reasonable? It reduces the whole administration to a farce. It makes the whole of this a contested question of fact. No one could know whether a voyage could or could not be undertaken. Hon. Members forget that the object for which the Bill is introduced is to enable this section of the shipping industry to contend more successfully with world conditions and foreign subsidised shipping than would otherwise be the case. Certainty is the essence of the matter. One of the reasons for our being unable to accept an earlier Amendment dealing with the constitution of the Tramp Shipping Committee was that you had to have people on the spot who knew exactly what they were dealing with so that their decision went; and the owner knew, when he had got the decision, that he could rely on it and knew whether the voyage would be profitable and whether he could undertake it.
The hon. Member who supported the Amendment referred to the number of Lascars employed on ships. Has he given any consideration to the question how
many of the total number of Lascars, the great majority of whom are British subjects, are in liners and how many in tramps? Would he be surprised to know that by far the larger number of them are engaged in the liner services and not in the tramp section at all? My information is that only a comparatively small number are engaged in tramp ships. The greater number of the coloured seamen are not engaged in connection with ships which will ever come within miles of this subsidy. The hon. Member's information is only partial, it is inaccurate and it is wrongly applied. [Interruption.] I think not. Figures were givon on 4th December dealing with the subject of alien labour on British ships in some detail. The hon. Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. West) asked if I could tell him the way in which the numbers of British seamen had declined during the period of depression as well as the number of lascars. In 1929 there were: British, other than Lascars, 133,606; foreigners, other than Lascars, 16,383; and Lascars, 53,571. That is a total of just over 200,000, roughly a quarter of whom were Lascars, and 8.1 per cent. were foreign seamen other than Lascars. That is the figure that the Board of Trade are anxious to see reviewed. The percentage is steadily falling and the numbers are falling. In the year 1933 the British figures had fallen from 133,000 in 1929 to 96,916. The hon. Member suggested that they had fallen by a little more than 20 per cent., but it is more than that. The number of foreigners, other than Lascars, had fallen from 16,383 to 7,661, or more than 50 per cent., and the lascars, British and foreign, that is, the small percentage who are neither Indian nor East African, from 53,000 to 42,475. Those are the facts. There is no mystery about them at all. The lascars are mostly British subjects to whom, therefore, it may rightly be conceived, no Amendment ought to apply. We entirely decline to differentiate between the citizenship of British subjects.
The question of wages is not the relevant consideration. No amount of repetition of a fact will impress certain hon. Members. They have to learn by experience in some other form. I am endeavouring to state the case as I understand it. Wherever Lascars are employed, there is good reason for it. Either the British ship does not come
back to a United Kingdom port at all, or the vessel puts into ports where there are no British seamen available and has to sign on a crew. In many of the cases where Lascars are found on British tramp ships, it is because the vessels ply to ports where there is no available supply of British labour other than lascars. The hon. Member asks, "What do they do when they sign them off? He knows the Repatriation Clauses. If not, I will recite them for him. There are climatic conditions and other special reasons at the ports to which a vessel plys. I will conclude with the observation I ventured to make on 4th December that if you go too far with the practice that you shall not in any circumstances employ aliens on British ships, you may find that, instead of increasing the number of British seamen whom you employ, you may put out of work the remainder of the crew because of boggling over a few. The Amendment is quite impracticable and contains words which have no signification in law or any exact meaning, and for that reason cannot be accepted.

Mr. WEST: The hon. Gentleman said that my figures were inaccurate and unfounded. My point was that from eight per cent. to five per cent. was the diminution of foreign sailors and that

there had been a diminution also of British sailors. Do not the figures prove that I was correct? Does not he say that the foreign sailors declined by 20 per cent., while British sailors declined from 25 to 30 per cent.?

Dr. BURGIN: The foreign figures declined by over 50 per cent. We shall make no point merely by throwing figures across the Floor of the House. I will give the figures to the hon. Member, and he must look at them. There is no dispute as to the facts; it is the deduction we draw from them. The wish of everybody is that more British seamen shall be employed, and my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, as long ago as 3rd July, when the matter was raised for the first time in this House, said that very few British shipping companies are covering their round of expenses. It is not a shipowner's problem, but it concerns thousands of engineers and seamen as well as the nation as a whole. The object of this legislation is to endeavour to secure more employment.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 24; Noes, 115.

Division No. 33.]
AYES.
[12.4 a.m.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Gardner, Benjamin Walter
McEntee, Valentine L.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)


Banfield, John William
Grundy, Thomas W.
Parkinson, John Allen


Batey, Joseph
John, William
Tinker, John Joseph


Buchanan, George
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
West, F. R.


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)



Daggar, George
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Lawson, John James
Mr. Paling and Mr. Duncan Graham.


Dobbie, William
Logan, David Gilbert



Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)




NOES.


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (P'rtsm'th, S.)
Harbord, Arthur


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Colonel Charles
Clayton, Sir Christopher
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Horobin, Ian M.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Cooke, Douglas
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.


Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.
Copeland, Ida
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)


Blindell, James
Cross, R. H.
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)


Bossom, A. C.
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.
Kerr, Hamilton W.


Bower, Commander Robert Tatton
Dickie, John P.
Latham, Sir Herbert Paul


Boyce, H. Leslie
Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Leech, Dr. J. W.


Braithwaite, Maj. A. N. (Yorks, E. R.)
Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Elmley, Viscount
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.


Broadbent, Colonel John
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Levy, Thomas


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Lindsay, Noel Ker


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Goff, Sir Park
Llewellin, Major John J.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)


Burghley, Lord
Grimston, R. V.
Mabane, William


Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)


Burnett, John George
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
McKie, John Hamilton


Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Hanley, Dennis A.
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest


Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Marsden, Commander Arthur
Rea, Walter Russell
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Martin, Thomas B.
Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Sutcliffe, Harold


Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Remer, John R.
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A. (P'dd'gt'n, S.)


Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Rosbotham, Sir Thomas
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres
Runelman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Skelton, Archibald Noel
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.
Slater, John
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


O'Donovan, Dr. William James
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.
Warrender, Sir victor A. G.


Orr Ewing, I. L.
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Palmer, Francis Noel
Smith, Sir J. Walker- (Barrow-in-F.)
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Patrick, Colin M.
Smithers, Sir Waldron
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Penny, Sir George
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.



Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilst'n)
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Procter, Major Henry Adam
Stourton, Hon. John J.
Captain Sir George Bowyer and Sir Walter Womersley.


Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)
Strauss, Edward A.



Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Strickland, Captain W. F.



Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 2.—(Power to make advances in respect of approved proposals.)

12.10 a.m.

Dr. ADDISON: I beg to move, in page 3, line 30, at the end, to add:
(2) "The Ships Replacement Committee shall, to the extent of at least one-fourth of its membership, consist of persons appointed after consultation with organisations representative of workers employed in the shipping and shipbuilding industries
In view of what has happened to our other amendments I suppose it will be said that it is impossible to accept this amendment. I will, therefore, only move it formally. We propose that at least one-fourth of the members of the Committee should consist of persons appointed after consultation with the representatives of the organised workers in the shipping and shipbuilding industries. We suggest that it should be a composite body representing both sides of the industry as is very common in committees in almost every industry. The replies on our amendments to-night show that in the opinion of the Government what other industries have done, and done successfully, and worked smoothly for many years, it is impossible in the shipping industry.

12.12 a.m.

Dr. BURGIN: The Amendment assumes that the Ships Replacement Committee will have occasion to deal with crew space, crews' wages, conditions of employment on board ship, and the payment of wages to persons employed in breaking up, building or modernising ships. The rates of wages paid to seamen and to the employés in shipyards or ship-breaking establishments are protected by existing non-statutory arrangements, while the conditions to be complied with on board ship are dealt with under the
Merchant Shipping Act. The result is that the Ships Replacement Committee will not have to concern itself with any of these matters, and the suggestion that the Committee should include certain representatives to enable it to deal with these matters falls to the ground. For that reason the amendment must be resisted.

Amendment negatived.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill".

12.13 a.m.

Captain A. EVANS: I should like a few words of explanation on a point which I am not able to understand. The Clause says:
…the Board may approve the proposals and upon any such proposals being so approved the Board may, with the consent of the Treasury, and upon a recammendation made by the Ships Replacement Committee, make an advance to that person for the purpose of enabling him to build or modernize the vessels provided for by the proposals.
Those proposals are contained in two White Papers, the first of which was published on 3rd July last and the second was published last month. In Clause 1—also in the White Paper published on the 3rd July—we find that so far as the scrapping and building policy of the Government is conceived, there is reference to the type of tonnage to be scrapped. It is to be of United Kingdom origin. The words used in the White Paper are:
One scheme contemplates that financial assistance would be granted to British owners to enable them to build new United Kingdom tonnage or to modernize existing United Kingdom tonnage on condition that they scrapped not less than three times as much United Kingdom tonnage of the same general character.
In the White Paper published last Monday, we find in Clause 9 sub-paragraph (b) that owners are to be allowed to buy
ships, for scrapping, from foreign owners, as well as to scrap British ships, I have listened very carefully to all the Debates which have taken place on the money resolution and on all stages of this Bill, but I have failed to hear one word of explanation from my right hon. Friend, or from the Parliamentary Secretary, as to why this change has been made: as to why the Government made up their minds to let foreign vessels qualify so far as the scrapping policy is concerned. I raised this point on the Second Reading of this Bill. Unfortunately may right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, replying to the speeches of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) did not have time to deal with this specific point. The point I put to him then and should like to emphasise to-night, is this: I should like to know why foreign vessels have been included at this late stage? It would appear to me, and to some of my friends, that there is sufficient redundant British shipping that could be profitably scrapped before we do the same thing for our foreign competitors. The whole point of this Bill is to deal with foreign competition; and surely it is advisable for us to scrap any obsolete British vessels and build in their place up-to-date tramp steamships that can compete under favourable conditions with foreign vessels. If it is argued that there is not sufficient British tonnage available for this purpose, then, I think, it is practical to suggest that the decision in these matters should be left to the Ships Replacement Committee. If they were satisfied that British tonnage of suitable character at an economic price was not available, they could issue a licence to allow foreign tonnage to be acquired for the purpose.

12.17 a.m.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The object of this Bill is to reduce redundant tonnage and to increase the amount of tonnage sailing profitably under the British flag. If we can succeed in buying some of the old stuff from abroad and scrapping it on the best terms, we shall be bringing about a reduction of total tonnage, and we shall use part of that tonnage for replacing British ships in British yards. Therefore we shall gain, on balance. The work of scrapping is a source of employment, and the scrap itself, for the iron and steel trade, is quite worth having. Furthermore, the number of vessels laid
up is very much smaller now than it was 12 months ago. There is more than one reason for this. One reason is that there is a certain amount of extra trade. A second reason is that there has been a certain amount of tonnage scrapping going on here. I hope that that explanation satisfies my hon. Friend.

Mr. ALBERY: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he does not think British shipping will be effected by the fact that foreign ships can be purchased and used for scrapping under the Scheme. The right hon. Gentleman says there are not enough British ships available to scrap. Will not the price of scrap be forced up by foreigners, and new foreign ships be built with the money received to compete with ours?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am afraid I cannot accept the deduction of my hon. Friend, but in any case it is not we who buy. It is the shipowner who wants to buy two old ships to get the facilities for building one in their place.

CLAUSE 3.—(Requirements as to proposals in respect of which advances may be made.)

12.21 a.m.

Mr. WEST: I beg to move, in page 4, line 24, at the end, to insert:
(d) that the wages paid by any employer to persons employed by him in connection with the demolition, building, or modernising of any vessel shall, except where paid at a rate agreed upon by a joint industrial council representing the employer and the persons employed, not be less than would be payable if the work were carried on under a contract made between a Government department and the employer containing a fair-wage clause which complied with the requirements of any resolution of the House of Commons for the time being in force applicable to contracts of Government departments, and if any dispute arises as to what wages ought to be paid in accordance with this paragraph it shall be referred by the Board of Trade to the Industrial Court for settlement.
(e) that where any award has been made by the industrial court upon a dispute referred to that court under the foregoing paragraph then, as from the date of the award or from such later date as the court may direct, it shall be an implied term of the contract between every employer and worker to whom the award applies that the rate of wages to be paid under the contract shall, until varied in accordance with the provisions of this or the foregoing paragraph, be in accordance with the award.
This Amendment asks that fair wages should be paid to all who are employed in the demolition, building, or modernising of any vessel under this Clause. The President of the Board of Trade has been described to-night as being sweet, if not reasonable I hope that he will accept this very modest Amendment and prove himself at the end of this Debate to be both sweet and reasonable.

12.22 a.m.

Mr. McENTEE: I beg to support the Amendment. Nothing will give me greater pleasure than to withdraw the statement that I made earlier to-night about the right hon. Gentleman, if I can do so within reason. In every contract issued by a Government Department it has been the practice for many years to insert what is called a fair wages clause. I have had recent experience of bringing to the notice of the Admiralty and other Government Departments breaches of that clause, and in every case it has been my experience that, after inquiry, they saw to it that the clause was given effect to. If it is right to insert this clause in land contracts, it will, I think, be agreed that it is no less reasonable that, when we are dealing with ships that have to be broken up, or modernised, or with new ships that are to be built, the men employed should have the same right guaranteed to them with regard to the conditions of their employment. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will concede this point to us.

12.24 a.m.

Dr. BURGIN: The Government are as interested in the payment of fair wages as are the two hon. Members who have moved and seconded the Amendment, but I would ask them to consider what they are asking the Committee to do. Previous Amendments have elicited the fact from the President of the Board of Trade that there have been fewer labour disputes in the shipping industry than in almost any other industry that one can name, and it is into that happy family that it is proposed to introduce references to the Industrial Court. We have a shipbuilding industry with conciliation machinery, with everything going smoothly, and this Amendment, couched in terms that would cause great resentment, makes a reference to the Industrial Court. The industries concerned are
organised trades, there is machinery for settling wage conditions and adjusting disputes, that machinery has worked quite well, there is no complaint of it, and where the going is good, it is foolish to interfere.
This scheme provides for the building of at most about 1,000,000 tons of shipping, spread over a period of between two and three years. A million tons deadweight means about 640,000 tons gross. If the building is uniformly spread over the period, it is at the rate of 300,000 tons a year. It looks as if that building would be about 20 per cent. of the shipbuilding that would be carried on in the shipbuilding yards of this country, and it is suggested that, as part of this Bill to encourage replacement and modernisation, we should subject 20 per cent. of the shipping that is being built in our yards to some different conditions from those which prevail with regard to the remaining 80 per cent. That is not a practical or sensible suggestion. If these were unorganised trades——

Mr. McENTEE: It would not subject them to any different status at all, but it would guarantee them that they would get those conditions that are observed by the organised people in the industry.

Dr. BURGIN: If we incorporated this Amendment, it would make statutorily applicable to the 20 per cent. what is voluntarily applicable to the 80 per cent., and that is imposing a differentiation between two classes of shipping that are building at the same time. We cannot have an Amendment of this kind grafted into a Bill with an entirely different purpose. These industries are organised, conciliation machinery is working satisfactorily, there is no complaint, and there is no reason to suspect or fear that there will be complaint. The whole idea that anyone wants to use these facilities for building on some abnormal lines is a figment of the imagination. This Amendment is one of a whole series of Amendments suggesting that there is something behind this movement, either for procuring cheap labour, or giving poor accomodation, or paying less than normal rates of wages. There is not a shadow of foundation for the whole case from beginning to end, and it is for that reason that the Amendment cannot possibly be accepted.

12.27 a.m.

Dr. ADDISON: We do not propose to continue the Debate at this late hour, but I would ask my hon. Friends to divide against the Government on this Amendment. I have never heard a more nauseous succession of excuses for refusing to assure decent conditions to British seamen. One would imagine that this Amendment was proposing something altogether fresh, but it is in the sugar subsidy policy, and has been for years, in almost identical terms. It is almost identical with the fair wages conditions which apply very widely throughout the country, and even the present Government have been willing to accept it in some other Departments. To-night we have seen the spectacle of the Tory party being led by an ex-Liberal Minister to vote against the employment of British seamen, and a more shameful exhibition I have never seen. The hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade has forgotten to mention that £10,000,000 are being found by the public for building these ships, and we are only saying that when the public finds the money, we are fully entitled to require that these requirements should be inserted as a condition of the granting of the subsidy. Why should not the Board of Trade agree to do what every other Government Department does in respect of every decent Government contract? A more degrading exhibition of excuses I have never listened to.

12.29 a.m.

Lieut.-Colonel SANDEMAN ALLEN: As the right hon. Gentleman was speaking of degrading exhibitions, the most degrading exhibition, to my mind, has been the attempt of the Labour party, by a whole series of Amendments, to lure the National Union of Seamen to the Trades Union Congress.

12.30 a.m.

Mr. BUCHANAN: This is a matter which deals not with hours, so much as the conditions of employment of certain people. We admit that the industry is organized, both as regards employers and workmen. But this matter applies to almost 90 per cent. of Government contracts in which there is a fair wage clause inserted. All that is being asked now is that shipbuilding should come into the same category, and should have applied to it something that is applied in the case of Government contractors. These
people, to the extent that they are receiving public money in the shape of a subsidy, should be subject to this fair wages clause. That is all that we have said. It is not saying that the trade unions are inadequate, or that the employers are inadequate, to negotiate. In effect, the Amendment only says that they should be subject to this safeguard. Why it should not be granted and why matters should be raised about machinery having to be altered, I do not know, because the fair wages clause, in the main, applies to highly organized trades. You have it in the case of the Post Office in regard to building contracts, although the building contractors are well organized—both employers and workmen. Why you should not have it for shipbuilding, I cannot imagine.
What objection can there be to putting in this guarantee of a fair wages clause? It is perfectly true that the conditions are in the main observed; I do not deny that, but certainly there arise occasions where it is advisable for the Government to make recommendations to non-observers. All that is asked is that that kind of enforcement should be given. I cannot see why there should be all this great fight about it. It is nothing much for which we are asking. It is a very simple thing and one that the Government themselves ought to grant. Indeed, it is an elementary thing to ask for, and all this white heat worked up about people attacking conditions, leaves me cold. We are simply asking that where public money is granted and this sanction is given, the people who are in part responsible for the work should be guaranteed certain conditions. Nobody is slandering sailors or anybody else. I confess I cannot follow the Government in their refusal. Anyone with a suspicious mind might feel that the Government had some reason for their constant refusal.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade is a dogmatic person. I will not go over his past; one does not like anybody's past—not even one's own—to be too much called up; when however the hon. Gentleman has made up his mind, he is dogmatic. I wish he would look at it from this point of view, that this public money is being granted and we on this side are entitled to say that, as in the case of all contracts, the fair wages clause should apply. Is that
asking too much? Is there anything in that affecting the conciliation machinery? You might just as well say that to-morrow you will take the fair wages clause out of every government contract and all the building contracts connected with the Post Office because there is conciliation machinery. We do not do that, and all that we are asking is that this extra safeguard should be applied and fully carried out. The position taken up by the Parliamentary Secretary does not do credit to his logic or to his capacity.

12.36 a.m.

Mr. PALING: I had hoped when the right hon. Gentleman came down here tonight we were really going to discuss this Committee stage in a spirit of give-and-take to some extent. I believed his first words were to this effect, that he was prepared to discuss this whole question in a frame of mind of sweet reasonableness. I do not know whether he thinks he has done so or not. It may be he does, but I took it when he said that, that he was not just paying a compliment or just saying an idle nothing. I really thought that since the time when we discussed this matter on Second Reading and again tonight that the right hon. Gentleman had gone into this business and had given his full attention to the Amendments we had put down and was going to show an inclination at least, if he was not prepared to accept the Amendments in full, that he was prepared to accept some of them, or if not the actual wording of some of them, at least to accept the spirit of them. Instead of that, we have met with a point blank refusal to everything that we have put up tonight.
Since I have been in this House, whether in Opposition or on the other side, I do not know that I have ever known a Committee stage of a Bill which affected the lives of the working classes so much, in regard to hours, conditions of service and accommodation, in which we have been so absolutely refused anything for which we have asked. As I listened to the two right hon. Gentlemen and hon. Gentlemen if I had not known otherwise, I should have come to the conclusion that as far as the shipping industry was concerned, in such matters as accommodation, food, quarters and hours of work and amount of labour and wages paid, the industry provided the
finest position any man could ever be in, and that to be a seaman was to be absolutely in an angel's position. Unfortunately, I know differently, and I know that the picture of the conditions that he has tried to portray to us is not true. I ask the right hon. Gentlemen, is it not true, if my memory serves me right, that when we were discussing the Cunard business and the completion of the Queen Mary, that we did get from the Chancellor of the Exchequer something in the nature of a guarantee as to conditions of work on that ship? I believe I am right in saying that we did get something to that effect. I do not see that we are asking any more now than we asked then.
I was amazed that the right hon. Gentleman, whom I have always looked upon in his past life as an apostle of purity as far as public money is concerned—and I do not say this in any offensive sense—should have argued on the first Amendment that when giving £2,000,000 to shipbuilders, the Committee which is to advise as to how the money should be spent should be composed of shipbuilders themselves and this they could advise that the money should be paid to themselves. I was amazed to hear him taking that line, but we know that he has changed his mind on a lot of things. He used to be the apostle of Free Trade, but since then he has been made the very weapon with which Free Trade is killed. So I suppose we cannot be surprised at anything he said to-night. We have listened to him talking about the advisability of appointing a committee of shipbuilders to advise him to give money to shipbuilders. What would have been said when we were discussing the Unemployment Assistance Regulations if we had adopted his example and suggested that there should be an advisory committee of unemployed to tell the Unemployment Board what amount they should pay to the unemployed? It would have been no more silly than what he is doing to-night. When it suits him to pay money out of the public purse to shipowners and shipbuilders, and capitalists generally, he can argue in this direction; but when it is anything for the working man, even for the unemployed—no; for wages—no; for the guarantee of a fair wages clause—no; for decent conditions for seamen—no; for decent sleeping quarters—no; that, even,
British labour should have the choice as against coloured labour—no. From the beginning he calls discussing this thing in a spirit of sweet reasonableness—no, no, no! That is what we have got tonight. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade has tried to tell us that it is all right and that the shipping industry is all right. Again, there is only one answer—it is not true. We know better than he does in this respect. I am ashamed——

Mr. LESLIE BOYCE: May I ask the hon. Member a question?

Mr. PALING: The hon. Member will have his chance to speak later. I am ashamed that after coming down and promising to do what he said, the President of the Board of Trade should have found it possible to do nothing on behalf of the people whose need is greatest. He has only found it possible to help out of public funds his own particular friends.

Mr. TINKER: I have not taken part in these discussions because I have left it to people who have a better knowledge of the subject than I have. We do expect that when public money is being handled we should have a right to ask that the workers in that industry should be protected as best they can. This Amendment is on those lines. I expected, after hearing the opening statement of the President of the Board of Trade, that when

we arrived at this Amendment we should get some response from him. In place of that, we get a hiding from the Parliamentary Secretary, who said that he could do nothing about it and that there was no need for it. He said that it would lead to special conditions which would give a statutory basis to one section. Would there be anything wrong if the 80 per cent. who were getting certain conditions were given a statutory basis because the other 20 per cent. got it? There should be no difficulty at all. When public money is being handed out protection should be given to the other side.

I heard the earlier Debate when the Committee was being selected from the shipowners, and there was no response to our appeal. I did hope that something would be done on this Amendment. We are determined not to talk too much on this Amendment after 12 o'clock as we want to respond to the appeal that has been made, but at least we expect some concession and some fair deal. We have not got it at all. Under a complacent exterior—and the Parliamentary Secretary has the same demeanour—the President of the Board of Trade makes it appear that the Government are entirely on the side of the shipowners, and we have got to have no protection at all.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 19; Noes, 100.

Division No. 34.]
AYES.
[12.45 a.m.


Adams, D. M (Poplar, South)
Gardner, Benjamin Walter
Milner, Major James


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
Tinker, John Joseph


Batey, Joseph
Grundy, Thomas W.
West, F. R.


Buchanan, George.
John, William



Cripps, Sir Stafford
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Dagger, George
Lawson, John James
Mr. Duncan Graham and Mr. Paling.


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Logan, David Gilbert



Dobbie, William
McEntee, Valentine L.



NOES.


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Goff, Sir Park


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Colonel Charles
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.


Albery, Irving James
Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Grimston, R. V.


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)
Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.


Apsley, Lord
Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Clayton, Sir Christopher
Hanley, Dennis A.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.
Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Harbord, Arthur


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Copeland, Ida
Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)


Blindell, James
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.


Bossom, A. C.
Cross, R. H.
Horobin, Ian M.


Bower, Commander Robert Tatton
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)


Boyce, H. Leslie
Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Keyes, Admiral Sir Roger


Braithwaite, Maj. A. N. (Yorks, E. R.)
Elmley, Viscount
Latham, Sir Herbert Paul


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Leech, Dr. J. W.


Broadbent, Colonel John
Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Lindsay, Noel Ker
Palmer, Francis Noel
Stourton, Hon. John J.


Llewellin, Major John J.
Penny, Sir George
Strauss, Edward A.


Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilst'n)
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Loftus, Pierce C.
Procter, Major Henry Adam
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Mabane, William
Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)
Sutcliffe, Harold


MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A. (P'dd'gt'n, S.)


McKie, John Hamilton
Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Rosbotham, Sir Thomas
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Marsden, Commander Arthur
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Skelton, Archibald Noel
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Slater, John
Womersley, Sir Walter


Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)



Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Smith, Sir J. Walker- (Barrow-in-F.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.
Smithers, Sir Waldron
Captain Austin Hudson and Lieut.-


O'Donovan, Dr. William James
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.
Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward.


Orr Ewing, I. L.
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.



Question put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 4.—(Provisions as to Advances.)

12.53 a.m.

Captain A. EVANS: I beg to move, in page 5, line 9, at the end, to insert:
except in the case of owners of any vessel giving an undertaking to burn British, and/or Empire coal, or oil derived exclusively from this source, when the rate of interest shall not exceed two per cent.
I am afraid that there is a mistake in the terms of the Amendment as it appears on the Order Paper. I am afraid also that it is largely my fault because the first part of the Amendment was typewritten and when I altered it in my own handwriting——

The CHAIRMAN: I allowed the hon. and gallant Member to move his Amendment so that he could tell the Committee the form in which he proposed to do so. I am not quite sure it makes sense, or whether it is in Order. The hon. and gallant Member will perhaps enlighten the Committee on the subject.

Captain EVANS: I hope to do so even at five minutes to one o'clock in the morning. I must apologise to the Committee for raising such an important matter at this hour. The Amendment has been put down to elicit a statement from the Government on their policy on the question of coal and oil as it affects the mercantile marine. I think the President of the Board of Trade knows what is in my mind and I do not think it necessary at this time of the morning to go over the whole ground of the position of the South Wales coal industry. I fear that if I attempted to do so—and that was my original plan—the Committee would have very little sympathy with me. There are one or two
facts, however, that we have to take into consideration in regard to the Amendment. It is true to say that as far as the Admiralty List is concerned—and it was a very important list for the South Wales coal industry years ago—that is unhappily a thing of the past. I think that there is certainly a case for the use of oil in the Navy, purely from the point of view of naval efficiency. I do not think that argument can apply to the mercantile marine as a whole, and the tramp shipping section in particular. My chief anxiety in putting down this Amendment is in relation to the new ships which will be built under Part II of the Bill. I think it is true to say that from the economic point of view it is advisable to burn coal on the tramp steamers which work at a speed of under 12 knots an hour, and that it is more economical and advantageous to burn oil in ships built to deal with a speed of over 12 knots per hour.

The CHAIRMAN: Perhaps I can save the hon. and gallant Member trouble. I realise now that his Amendment is entirely outside the scope of the Bill, and I am afraid I must rule that that is so. It is not in order.

Captain EVANS: May I respectfully say that it is pertinent to suggest that if £10,000,000 is to be paid to this industry, regard should be had to the position of the coal industry with a view to making some practical suggestion to encourage the burning of coal by British steamers rather than the burning of oil?

The CHAIRMAN: That is just the kind of thing which I think is beyond the scope of the Bill, and I rule accordingly.

Clauses 5 (Commencement of Part II), 6 (Supplementary Provisions), 7 (Repeal of 16 & 17 Geo. 5. c. 9. s. 18), and 8 (Short Title) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read the Third time upon Monday, 28th January.

Orders of the Day — DEPRESSED AREAS (DEVELOPMENT AND IMPROVEMENT) BILL (changed to "SPECIAL AREAS (DEVELOPMENT AND IMPROVEMENT) BILL)."

Motion made, and Question, "That the Lords Amendments he considered forthwith," put, and agreed to.—[Mr. Skelton.]

Lords Amendments considered accordingly.

CLAUSE 1.—(Appointment and functions of Commissioners.)

Lords Amendment: In page 1, line 10, leave out the word "depressed."

1 a.m.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Skelton): I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The Amendments concern one word in the Bill appearing in various places, from the Title onwards, and are for the purpose of replacing the word "depressed" by the word "special." I think the House will agree with me that there are good reasons for doing this, and that it is undesirable to label areas as "depressed" if a word not in any sense tendentious can be found to identify them. As we are aware from the public press and elsewhere, I think it is undesirable to use a word of this kind, because we hope there will be economic and social improvement in these areas, and it seems undesirable that at the starting of the scheme we should label them as depressed areas.

1.3 a.m.

Mr. KINGSLEY GRIFFITH: I should welcome this Amendment from a certain point of view, in that I think it is unfortunate that any areas should be labelled and put in, so to speak, a hopeless category. Speaking for an area which is often described as depressed, I
should welcome its being described as a special area, meaning an area for special consideration. Unfortunately, I am in the position of representing an area which can be described as being neither "depressed" nor "special," and the point I wish to press on the Government is that there might be some serious danger in laying down a statutory definition of areas which have been specially affected by industrial depression, and thereby implying that areas in that category are going to be regarded as in a special position. It may be there will be future legislation on this subject, and if we are to have new legislation using the same Schedules as we have in the Bill it is going to be taken for granted that Tees-side and some parts of Lancashire will be determined as areas which are not affected by depression. I do not want to detain the House on a matter which may only be a technicality but which may be more than that, but I do ask the Under-Secretary for Scotland to give some assurance that in the future determination of these areas the Government will approach the matter with a perfectly open mind, and if he does that I shall be content.

Mr. SKELTON: The fears which the hon. Member has expressed are really more germane to the Schedule than to any description of the areas. In future legislation the Schedule will bind them much more than any words in the Bill, but I do not think that any Government dealing with future legislation will take such a view as the hon. Member feared.

1.5 a.m.

Mr. BATEY: I am sorry that this Amendment is being taken at this early hour of the morning. I am strongly opposed to it, because I believe that "depressed" is the word to describe these areas. The position in these areas is just as depressed as it was when the Government began to deal with them, and any alteration of the word does not make any difference to them: It is too late to keep the House on this question, and I content myself by entering this protest against the alteration.
I want to ask your ruling on the matter, Mr. Speaker, because in the Money Resolution the word "depressed" still remains. It is there in several places and I want to ask your ruling as to whether
seeing the word can be altered in the Bill without being altered in the Money Resolution.

Mr. SPEAKER: We are not dealing with the Money Resolution now for that was passed. We are dealing with the Bill.

1.7 a.m.

Mr. MARTIN: I do not want to make any comment on this Amendment, but I would like to say a word about a phrase used by the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland. He said the word "depressed" implied rather an attitude of mind than economic situation, and I would like to ask him if he would modify it if not withdraw it. After all, it has been on the economic aspect that we have been working for so many weeks. I will make a mild protest against the phrase, because there has been a certain tendency among leaders of industry to accuse Members of what has been called magnifying grief over the plight of the people in the areas. I hope that the Under-Secretary does not really mean that all these weeks of discussion have been without an economic basis. I hope he may be able to modify his views and maintain the attitude which we have taken upon it, and give the lie to those who think there is no economic foundation for using the word "depressed." If we could by any means dissipate the psychological disadvantages of using the word "depressed" by adopting the word "special" I should be all in favour of the Amendment.

1.11 a.m.

Mr. TINKER: I take exception to the change that is proposed. When I saw the Amendment reported in the newspapers, I took the opportunity of finding out why it had been put forward, and I read the proceedings in another Place. The noble Lord who moved it stated that for sentimental reasons he wanted to change the word "depressed" into "distressed". For the life of me I cannot understand what difference that makes. I understand the argument is that certain bad conditions prevailing in different parts of the country could only be expressed by the word "depressed". We cannot really alter bad conditions by just a little change of a word. So it appears to me that the idea behind it is to give to other parts of the country the
impression that things are not so bad as has been suggested in the Reports. Those Reports startled the country and made it think that something must be done to alleviate things, because the word "depressed" certainly drew attention to the state of things in those areas and many people read the Reports and the discussions which took place here. In my part of the world, the word "special" is looked upon as indicating something really good, something better. May I give a simple illustration? In the chips shops in Lancashire there are chips which are called "special chips". When you buy "special chips" you are supposed to be getting something extra. That is the idea we have in our part of the world. When they speak about someone being "specially dressed" it means that they are better dressed. So it seems the people in another place have said "Well, probably we can get the simple-minded people to think there is something extra in these other parts of the world by putting the word 'special' into it".
This is also a reflection on the ability of the House of Commons. We discussed the Money Resolution and the Bill itself and all sides of the House thought the word "depressed" was suited to the occasion. The people in another place apparently said "No, we have a job to do here. We have to teach the Commons something they do not know. We are a special assembly. What can we do to show them that we know more than they know? Why, we will alter the word 'depressed' to the word 'special'. We will give their plebeian minds something to thing about". So they altered this word. If that is all the other place has to do, then it is time we shifted it out of the way. If that was all they could do in this matter, it would have been far better for them to leave it alone and send it back to us unchanged. However, I suppose that is the extent of the work they can do. Now they are asking us to accept it. If I had my way I should force it to a division, but I understand some of our colleagues in another place have agreed to it and some of our Front Bench Members here too, and they are asking us not to oppose it to-night. If I had had my own way, I should have shown my feelings by not accepting the alteration. They seem to think there is a feeling among the people of Durham
against the word "depressed". I would like them to go to families down there and ask them "Are you wanting the word changed?" Not one of these families would say they want the word changed and they have not asked for it. Some people, who were referred to on the Second Reading, are ready to clear out at the first opportunity. They do not like to be associated with places like that, and thinking that the phrase "depressed area" might be a reflection on them, they tried to have the word altered to "special", so that they could 3ay to their friends "We come from Durham—not from a depressed area but from a special area". They are satisfied by some high-sounding word. I think the Commons are doing wrong in accepting this change.

1.17 a.m.

Mr. LAWSON: I should like to point out that it is not only on our benches that the change is viewed with little enthusiasm, because the same feeling is apparent among supporters of the Government. I think they apprehend that among the public there may be a tendency to feel that because the name has been altered there has been some change in the problem itself. Somebody has stated that the tendency would be to try to get away from the Reports which were called the Depressed Areas Reports. All who know the history of this question, know that every time it gets a fresh name, there is a "breaking out" in a fresh place, and things get worse. I hope that will not be the experience with this new name. Once upon a time these areas were called "necessitous areas"; then they became "distressed areas"; then they were commonly known as "derelict areas" and finally as "depressed areas." I fully agree with those who said in the other place that there was always a tendency to associate the name was a depressed state of mind, and I think there is a good deal to be said in that respect. To some extent the economic position does have its effect upon a certain section of people. I fully agree with the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) who pointed out that certain people in that area were making a desperate attempt to try to make out that things were not quite as bad as might be thought. Those depressed areas reports gave the truth and I do not think that by changing the name we shall leave
the public under any illusion as to the facts. There was another phrase that spoke of
areas which have been specially affected by industrial depression.
That covers the same thing. Our friends behind have expressed themselves, and I only hope there is no hon. Member in this House or of the public outside who is under any illusion that when this new term is used it means that some miracle has already been worked by this measure. They will be tested by their condition, and whether we call them special areas, distressed areas, or depressed areas, it is still the same problem. I venture to say that facts will express themselves from time to time, and, therefore, if this new name is given, I do not think myself, in the long run, that it will make any difference, except that it might tend, as the Under Secretary for Scotland has said, to get away from that depression of the mind. But the public and the Government must not be under any delusion; the areas are the same and the name makes no difference.

Mr. SPEAKER: All the Amendments that follow are consequential and, if the House agrees, I will put them all once.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Orders of the Day — ELECTRICITY (SUPPLY) ACTS.

Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1933, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, and the Public Works Facilities Act, 1930, in respect of part of the borough of Tamworth, in the county of Stafford, which was presented on the. 5th day of December, 1934, be approved."—[Captain A. Hudson.]

Orders of the Day — GAS UNDERTAKINGS ACTS, 1920 TO 1934.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 to 1934, on the application of the Sittingbourne and Milton urban district council, which was presented on the 5th day of December and published, be approved with the following modification:—

Clause 8, page 3, line 40, leave out 'but such consent,' and insert 'Such consent
may be given subject to such reasonable conditions as may be attached thereto but.'"—[Dr. Burgin.]

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Act, 1920 to 1934, on the application of the Weston-super-Mare and District Gas Company, which was presented on the 5th day of December and published, be approved with the following modification:—

Fifth Schedule, Part II, pages 46 and 47, leave out Section 24."—[Dr. Burgin.]

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 to 1934, on the application of the Bournemouth Gas and Water Company, which was presented on the 5th day of December and published, be approved with the following modifications:—
First Schedule, Part I, page 13, line 16, leave out "north-western," and insert "north-eastern.
First Schedule, Part I, page 13, line 17, leave out "136," and insert "137.
First Schedule, Part I, page 13, line 18, leave out "to the point where the boundary
of the parish of Brockenhurst turns in a northerly direction near Setley House," and insert "crossing the said road to and in a northerly direction along the eastern side thereof to a point on that road where it crosses the southern boundary of the parish of Brockenhurst.
First Schedule, Part I, page 13, line 20, leave out "northerly.
First Schedule, Part I, page 13, leave out lines 35 to 38.
First Schedule, Part III, page 13, lines 50 and 51, leave out "north-western," and insert "north-eastern.
First Schedule, Part III, page 13, line 51, leave out "136," and insert "137."—[Dr. Burgin.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Thursday evening, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Twenty-four Minutes after One o'Clock.